.   - 


'3 


mmm 


N     , x       s 


'-K2  'L 


CLAIMS 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  BISHOP 


APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  AND  VALID 
ORDERS  DISPROVED : 

WITH  VARIOUS  MISSTATEMENTS  OF  CATHOLIC  FAITH 


NUMEROUS  CHARGES  AGAINST  THE  CHURCH 


HOLY     §EE, 

CORRECTED  AND  REFUTED. 

BY 

S.  V.  RYAN,  BISHOP  OF  BUFFALO. 

i 

IN    TWO    PARTS. 


f&S-f- 


BUFFALO: 

CATHOLIC  PUBLICATION  COMPANY. 

1880. 


SANTA    BARBARA.   CAUP, 


Copyright,  1880, 

Buffalo  Catholic  Publication  Company 

All  Rights  Reserved. 


B&tcELSiOR  Electrotype  Foundry, 
West  Seneca,  N.  Y. 


CLAIMS 

OF  ^ 

A  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  BISHOP 

TO 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  AND  VALID 
ORDERS  DISPROVED: 

BY 

S.  V.  RYAN,  BISHOP  OF  BUFFALO. 
PART  I. 


CONTENTS. 

I.— Origin  of  our  little  Treatise i 

II. — Apostolical  Succession  essential  to  the  Christian 
Church— It  is  not  found  either  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  as-by-law  established,  or  the  Protestant 

Episcopal  Church  of  America 19 

III. — Communion  with  the  See  of  Peter  the  Test  of  Legiti- 
mate Succession 26 

IV. — Protestant  Episcopal  and  Anglican  Succession  Re- 
pudiated.                 ....    40 

V. — Was  Matthew   Parker  Consecrated  ?        ...     49 

VI. — The  Lambeth   Register 73 

VII. — Was  Barlow  ever  Consecrated  Bishop  ?    .        .        .92 
VIII. — Futile  Attempts  to  bolster  up  or  supply  for  Bar- 
low's deficient  or  doubtful  Consecration.        .        .101 
IX. — The  Edwardine  Ordinal  not  the  same  as  the  Roman 
Pontifical — Invalidity  of  Form  of  Consecration  re- 
vised by  Edward  VI n  1 

X. — The   Insufficiency    of    the    Edwardine    Ordinal, 

Continued 130 

XL — Discrepancies  between  the  Roman  Pontifical  and  the 

Ordinal  of  Edward,  Continued.           ....  146 
XII.— Conclusion if'O 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  finding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/claimsofprotestaOOryaniala 


PREFACE 


IN  the  year  1874,  a  number  of  Catholic  gentlemen  eft" 
Buffalo  requested  me  in  writing,  to  deliver  a  lecture  at 
my  earliest  convenience,  in  behalf  of  the  numerous  poor  of 
the  city,  and  at  the  same  time  suggested  the  subject  of  the 
lecture  in  these  terms  :  "  We  take  the  liberty  to  suggest  as 
your  subject,  a  review  of  a  sermon  delivered  on  the  31st 
ultimo,  at  Erie,  by  Dr.  Coxe,  on  the  occasion  of  the  conse- 
cration of  a  missionary  bishop — and  published  in  the  "  Com- 
mercial Advertiser"  of  this  city — a  copy  of  which  we  herein 
enclose — a  sermon  which,  it  appears  to  us,  strangely  mixes 
up  Catholic  truth,  with  gross  abuse  of  the  Catholic  Church; 
sound,  time-honored  Catholic  principles  with  the  most  un- 
warrantable assumption."  Acceding  to  their  request  I  wrote 
to  the  gentlemen:  "  I  have  read  the  sermon  of  Dr.  A.  Cleve- 
land Coxe,  to  which  you  refer,  and  indeed  I  concur  with 
you  in  characterizing  it  as  a  strange  medley  of  truth  and 
falsehood;  of  sound,  solid  arguments,  eloquently  and  forci- 
bly put,  in  favor  of  principles  which  must  lead  any  man 
holding  them,  who  is  logical  and  consistent,  into  the  fold  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  evidences  of  an  unaccountable 
hatred,  and  a  spirit  of  spitefulness  towards  the  only  Church 
that  really  upholds  and  carries  out  these  principles.  His 
sermon  I  will  take  as  the  text  of  my  lecture  ;  the  time  and 
place  I  leave  to  yourselves  to  designate."  The  lecture  was 
delivered  in  St.  Joseph's  Cathedral,  Feb.  22,  1874,  and 
afterwards  printed  in  pamphlet  form  by  the '  ''Buffalo  Catholic 
Publication  Co."  and  the  "Catholic  World"  noticing  it  in  the 

iii 


iv  PRE  FA  CE. 

May  number  of  1874,  was  kind  enough  to  say:  "In  his 
temperate  but  severe  criticism,  Bishop  Ryan  has  made  an 
end  of  his  (Dr.  Coxe's)  claims  to  possess  episcopal  character 
and  mission,  and  has  refuted  him  out  of  his  own  mouth. 
We  trust  that  this  able  and  valuable  pamphlet  will  not  be 
permitted  to  go  into  oblivion,  as  pamphlets  are  wont  to 
do,  but  be  carefully  preserved  and  made  use  of  by  clergymen 
and  others,  which  have  to  deal  with  Episcopalians  search- 
ing after  the  true  Church,  of  whom  there  are  so  many  in 
these  days."  Some  time  afterwards  there  was  published 
here  in  Buffalo  a  small  brochure  entitled:  "  Catholics  and 
Roman  Catholics,  by  an  Old  Catholic,  being  a  review  of  the 
lecture  lately  delivered  in  Buffalo  by  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Ryan, 
etc.,  etc.,  etc.,"  in  the  "  Advertisement"  of  which  we  read  : 
"  Though  I  here  subjoin  my  name,  as  author  of  this  review, 
two  reasons  have  influenced  me  to  withhold  it  from  the 
title  page.  First,  I  desire  to  avoid  all  appearance  of  personal 
controversy,  and  second,  I  wish  to  make  prominent  my 
position  as  an  Old  Catholic,  for  my  criticisms  are  based 
on  ancient  Catholicity."  (A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  Bishop  of 
Western  New  York.)  This  review  of  our  lecture,  we  in 
turn  reviewed  in  a  consecutive  series  of  articles,  contributed 
to  "The  Catholic  Union,"  respecting  the  wished-for  incognito 
of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Divine,  addressing  ourselves  to  "  Old 
Catholic,"  and  confining  ourselves,  as  much  as  possible,  to 
the  chief  point  of  the  controversy,  his  claims  to  Apostolical 
succession.  A  promise  made  at  that  time  to  friends,  who 
urged  the  matter  on  us,  and  to  whose  judgment  and  wishes  we 
thought  we  should  defer,  having  a  little  leisure  on  our  hands, 
during  the  past  winter,  we  determined  to  fulfil  by  giving  to  the 
public,  in  a  revised  and  somewhat  altered  form,  the  sub- 
stance of  those  articles.  Our  reviewer  charged  us  with 
making  a  personal  and  unwarranted  assault  on  him,  and 
now  we  beg  to  say,  that  we  spoke  and  wrote  purely  in  the 
interest  of  truth,  and  in  this  publication  we  have  endeavored 


PRE  FA  CE.  V 

to  discard  all  personal  allusions,  changing  words  and 
phrases  so  as,  whenever  possible,  to  avoid  giving  cause  of 
complaint  on  this  score,  and  if  our  language  is  sometimes 
strong,  or  if  it  has  at  times  the  appearance  of  want  of  courtesy, 
I  think  all  unbiassed  readers  will  acknowledge  that  the 
fault  is  not  on  our  side.  We  love  truth  and  must  defend 
it.  We  know  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and  must  repel 
false  and  erroneous  charges,  we  must  resent  having  our- 
selves and  our  holy  faith  belied  and  travestied,  apparently 
for  the  purpose  of  creating  and  confirming  prejudice 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  and  keeping  honest  and 
religious  minds  in  ignorance  and  error  regarding  her.  We 
really  care  little  personally,  as  far  as  we  ourselves  are  con- 
cerned, to  be  called  an  ignoramus,  to  whom  the  elements  of 
history  must  be  taught,  but  when  we  are  told,  or  rather 
when  our  respected  non-Catholic  fellow-citizens  are  told, 
that  we  are  authorized  by  our  Church  to  resort  to  the 
tactics  of  lying,  and  even  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  an  oath, 
whenever  the  good  of  the  Church  conflict*  with  keeping  it, 
we  confess  to  a  feeling  of  resentment.  We  smile  com- 
placently, when  it  is  intimated  that  our  "  ignorance  is  of  that 
kind,  which  the  Old  Catholics  of  Germany  assure  us  is 
common  among  otherwise  accomplished  men,  who  have  re- 
ceived their  education  in  Roman  Catholic  seminaries," 
but  when  our  own  saints  and  doctors  are  misquoted,  when 
canons  of  early  councils  are  falsified  and  distorted,  when  the 
early  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  cited  to  affirm  the  very  re- 
verse of  their  teachings,  and  all  to  obscure  the  truth  and 
injure  the  true  Church,  can  any  one  wonder  that  we  feel 
occasionally  a  little  indignant  ? 

We  have  no  personal  quarrel  with  our  neighbor  and  we 
have  never  mentioned  him  or  his  communion,  in  lecture  or 
the  press,  except  to  refute  some  false  charge  made  against 
ourselves  or  our  Church,  or  repel  some  slanderous  aspersion 
on  what  is  dearer  to  us  than  life  itself,  our  holy  faith.     He 


vi  PREFA  CE. 

does  us  great  wrong  then,  when  he  tells  the  public  that 
"  many  Roman  Catholics  seemed  to  be  restrained  by  no 
laws  of  courtesy,"  and  that  this  "comes  of  the  oath  which 
is  exacted  of  Roman  Catholic  prelates  at  their  consecra- 
tion." This  oath,  and  especially,  the  term  persequar,  has 
been  so  often  fully  vindicated  and  explained,  that  I  will 
only  say  that  in  translating  it  as  found  in  the  Roman  Ponti- 
fical, I  will  persecute,  he  does  violence  to  sound  philological 
interpretation,  just  as  he  violates  consistency,  when  a  little 
further  on,  in  a  passage  which  he  approvingly  cites  from 
St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  he  translates  the  very  same  words  in  a 
quite  different  way.  "  It  is  necessary,"  says  St.  Vincent, 
quoted  by  Old  Catholic,  "  for  all  Catholics  who  study  to 
prove  themselves  legitimate  sons  of  Mother  Church  to  stick 
fast  to  the  holy  faith  of  the  holy  fathers  and  to  abide  in  it; 
but  to  detest,  abhor,  pursue  and  banish  all  profane  novelties 
of  the  profane."  Ut  profanos  vero  profanorum  novitates 
detestentur,  horrescant,  inseclentur,  persequantur.  (xxxiii. 
commonitor,  II.)  Yet,  although  what  he  rightly  regards  in 
St.  Vincent,  as  righteous  zeal  for  the  holy  faith  of  the 
fathers  in  pursuing  and  banishing  profane  novelties  and 
errors  against  faith,  he  characterizes  in  us  as  an  intolerant 
vow,  and  gives  a  rendering  of  the  good  old  Latin  verb  to 
suit  the  sentiments  he  chooses  to  impute  in  either  case, 
still  we  assure  him  that  we  do  not  wish  to  be  discourteous  to 
any  one,  much  less  to  persecute  or  assault  brethren  and 
fellow-citizens,  differing  from  us  in  religious  faith.  Though 
in  all  candor,  we  must  confess  that  we  have  seen  from  him 
precious  little  of  that  "loving  spirit  of  our  own  Church," 
of  which  he  speaks,  but  have  known  him,  in  the  language  of 
the  writer  in  the  "  Catholic  World,"  above  referred  to,  as  "  A 
prelate,  conspicuous  for  arrogance  and  reckless  assertion, 
and  for  his  vituperative  and  defamatory  assaults  on  the 
Catholic  Church,"  and  though  we  have  perhaps,  in  self-de- 
fence, been  sometimes  forced  to  call  attention  to  those  unlov- 


PREFACE.  vii 

able  features  in  the  character  of  our  Old  Catholic  reviewer, 
and  point  to  evidence  of  grossly  false  statements  regarding  the 
Church  and  her  teaching,  it  was  always  with  reluctance 
that  we  used  language  that  might  appear  to  savor  of  personal- 
ity, for  in  truth  before  God,  we  have  no  personal  feeling 
against  the  gentleman.  If  then  we  now  publish  these  articles 
in  a  more  substantial  form,  it  is  because  many  whose  judg- 
ment we  respect  have  insisted  on  our  doing  so,  affirming 
that  they  are  calculated  to  do  much  good,  especially  with 
those  who  have  some  idea  of  Church  authority,  Church 
government,  "a  divine  commission  coming  down  from  the 
Apostles,"  a  divinely  appointed  ministry,  with  powers  to 
perpetuate  itself  and  thus  bring  down  through  the  ages  a 
succession  of  faithful  witnesses  to  the  Christian  revela- 
tion, incorruptible  guardians  of  the  precious  deposit  of 
faith  once  committed  to  the  saints.  No  one  sincerely  be- 
lieving in  a  Church  thus  organized  and  thus  to  be  perpet- 
uated can,  we  think,  read  the  following  pages  without  being 
convinced,  how  utterly  absurd  it  is  to  look  for  such  a  min- 
istry, such  a  succession  in  the  Anglican  establishment,  and 
if  not  there,  then  as  the  venerable  Dr.  Ives  remarked,  most 
assuredly  not  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States. 

I  need  hardly  tell  my  readers,  that  in  this  work  they  will 
find  very  little  of  my  own.  I  have  even  made  it  a  point 
whenever  possible  to  rest  my  statements  and  conclusions  on 
the  authority  of  others,  and  have  not  hesitated  to  quote 
freely  and  verbatim  from  Catholic  authors.  In  this  perhaps, 
I  may  have  done  some  service  to  the  Catholic  student,  by 
making  accessible  to  him  authorities  which  unfortunately 
in  some  cases,  are  either  out  of  print  or  very  rare.  I  need 
not  name  here  again  the  authors  from  which  I  have  so  unstint- 
ingly  borrowed,  as  I  mention  them  all  in  the  course  of  the 
work.  I  fear  that  certain  repetitions  of  subjects  and  argu- 
ments may  savor  somewhat  of  s'erial  contributions  where  it 


Viii  PREFACE. 

is  necessary  to  show  in  each  article  the  general  scope  of 
the  argument,  and  its  bearing  on  the  whole,  yet  if  this  does 
not  detract  from  the  force  and  conclusiveness  of  my  argu- 
ments, I  make  little  account  of  a  defect  of  this  kind  in  a 
work,  which  in  a  literary  or  artistic  point  of  view,  has,  I  fear, 
many  more  serious  short-comings.  The  first  part  is  entirely 
independent  of  the  second,  and  constitutes  a  whole  with- 
out it,  and  I  was  only  induced  to  write  the  second  part,  when 
I  found  our  reviewer  by  so  many  false  references  and  mis- 
statements of  Catholic  doctrine  mystifying,  misleading  and 
prejudicing  his  readers  against  the  Catholic  Church  and  her 
claims  as  the  true  spouse  and  mystical  body  of  Christ, 
coming  down  from  the  Apostles,  absolutely  one  in  faith, 
divine  in  her  origin,  imperishable  in  her  structure,  infallible 
in  her  teaching,  identically  the  self-same  in  her  sacraments, 
in  her  orders,  in  her  government,  "  yesterday,  to-day  and 
the  same  forever."  Yet,  I  think  the  dogmatic  and  historical 
points  treated  in  the  second  part  will  be  found  interesting 
and  instructive,  and  here,  too,  the  only  credit  I  take  to  my- 
self is  that  of  bringing  under  our  view,  matters  sometimes 
of  profound  interest  and  serious  controversy,  scattered 
over  the  wide  range  of  Church  history.  Just  here,  I  am  re- 
minded of  one  other  point  on  which  I  have  not  touched, 
and  which  is  made  much  of  in  the  advertisement  to  Old 
Catholic's  brochure,  and  often  elsewhere. 

I  beg  then  my  reader's  forbearance,  while  I  quote  again  : 
"Learned  in  what  is  Roman,  they  (accomplished  men,  who 
have  received  their  education  in  Roman  Catholic  semin- 
aries), are  left  mere  children rin  all  that  is  Catholic.  Of  the 
ancient  Catholic  constitutions  they  know  nothing,  because 
they  are  not  even  permitted  to  learn  that  such  constitutions 
exist.  The  brilliant  von  Schulte,  who  was  so  long  the 
favorite  canonist  of  the  Pope  himself,  has  inflicted  a  deep 
•wound  upon  the  Papacy,'  by  joining  the  '  Old  Catholics  ;' 
and  he  is  reported  to  have  said  that  he  was  honestly  en- 


PREFACE.  ix 

slaved  to  the  Vatican,  till  he  woke  up  to  the  fact  that  the 
whole  system  he  had  been  supporting  is  based  upon  the 
forged  decretals  and  other  spurious  documents,  which  he 
had  always  been  taught  to  accept  as  genuine.  This  dis- 
covery and  the  exposure  of  these  facts,  by  Dollinger  and 
his  associates  has  lighted  a  spirit  of  Reformation  in  Germany, 
which  is  extending  to  other  countries  of  Europe,  and  will 
not  long  be  kept  down  in  America."  I  have  given  this  pas- 
sage at  so  great  length  to  show  the  pabulum  on  which  "  Old 
Catholic"  babes  are  fed,  and  I  need  hardly  attempt  to 
analyze  it.  I  feel  confident,  that  if  our  episcopal  prelate 
wrote  to-day.  he  would  not  assume  the  tide  and  role  of  an 
"  Old  Catholic,"  or  base  so  many  bright  hopes  on  a  move- 
ment that  has,  in  the  short  space  of  a  few  years,  proved  a 
most  miserable  failure,  second  only  perhaps  to  the  later 
disgraceful  collapse  of  the  so-called  "  Independent  Ameri- 
can Catholic  Church."  Started  under  brightest  auspices,  a 
powerful  German  Empire  to  back  it,  an  imperious  imperial 
chancellor  its  foster  father,  the  prestige  of  whose  name, 
Bismarck,  imparted  to  it,  even  at  its  birth,  prominence,  and 
eclat,  what  has  it  ever  been  ?  what  has  it  ever  done  '  what 
is  it  now  ?  not  a  single  bishop  would  teach  the  polluted 
thing  begotten  in  sacrilege,  disobedience  and  despotism,  a 
few  priests  mostly  of  disreputable  antecedents  and  a  hand- 
ful of  worldly,  self-styled  liberal  laymen,  from  the  begin- 
ning it  languished;  its  life  is  now  well-nigh  extinct.  Never 
since  the  beginning  of  the  Church's  history,  even  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Nicene,  Ephesian  or  Constantinopolitan 
councils,  were  there  such  unanimity  in  the  episcopate,  such 
loyalty  in  the  clergy,  such  firmness,  independence  and 
genuine  Catholic  spirit  in  the  laity,  and  this  the  "  Old 
Catholic"  movement  has  made  evident  and  emphasized. 
What  a  fearful  wound  then,  the  brilliant  von  Schulte  has 
inflicted  on  the  Papacy  by  joining  the  "Old  Catholics!" 
But  who  has  told  our  enthusiastic  convert  to  "Old  Catho- 


X  PREFACE. 

iicism"  that  he  was  so  long  the  favorite  canonist  of  the 
Pope  himself  ?  If  von  Schulte  ever  said,  "  what  he  is  re- 
ported to  have  said,"  in  the  above  passage,  we  certainly  pity 
him.  Enslaved  to  the  Vatican  until  he  woke  up  to  the  fact 
that  the  whole  system  of  the  Papacy  was  based  on  forged 
decretals  and  ether  spurious  documents  '  What  are  these 
other  spurious  documents  ?  The  forged  decretals  we  know, 
every  school-bOy  knows,  or  may  know  just  what  they  are, 
their  character  and  value.  Our  ecclesiastical  students  find 
all  about  their  history,  their  origin,  and  their  author  in  the 
text  books  put  into  their  hands,  and  the  unprofessional  lay- 
man may  obtain  full  and  accurate  information  concerning 
this  Isidorian  collection  of  canons  and  decretals  in  "Apple- 
ton's  American  Cyclopedia"  under  the  titles  :  "Canon  Law" 
and  "Decretals."  To  suppose  then  that  the  brilliant  von 
Schulte  was  imposed  on  by  the  spurious  Isidore  Mercator 
or  Peccator  and  thus  enslaved  to  the  Vatican,  is  simply 
ridiculous.  Time  was,  when  simple  minds  could  easily  be 
deceived  by  unauthentic  or  spurious  documents,  provided 
the  doctrine  taught  and  the  laws  promulgated  were  not 
strange  or  novel,  provided  no  innovation  was  broached  that 
conflicted  with  the  well-known  faith  and  traditions  of  the 
Church.  People  did  not  care,  or  were  not  able  to  closely 
scrutinize  the  foundations  or  authorities  on  which  they  were 
made  to  rest.  But  in  our  day,  in  this  nineteenth  century, 
there  is  no  excuse  for  the  brilliant  von  Schult  *  or  any  other 
churchman,  who  allows  himself  to  be  duped  by  a  literary 
adventurer  of  the  ninth  century 

We  can  now  go  back  of  the  decretals,  search  the  original 
documents,  and  it  is  precisely  the  doing  of  this  which  has 
brought  men  of  research  and  patristic  learning,  to  believe 
in  the  Papacy  and  all  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the 
holy  Catholic  Church.  To  say  nothing  of  Newman  and 
Manning  and  a  host  of  other  really  learned  and  conscien- 
tious Anglicans,  Dr.  Ives  in  our  own  country,  an  eminently 


PREFACE.  XI 

able  and  amiable  prelate  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  goes  back  in  his  research  to  the  very  foundation  of 
the  Papacy,  and  quotes  from  genuine  original  documents  the 
testimony  of  the  earliest  Fathers  in  support  of  the  same. 
Dr.  James  Kent  Stone  does  the  same  in  his  "  Invitation 
Heeded,"  and  I  will  conclude  this  point,  by  quoting  his  pun- 
gent remarks  regarding  these  forgeries  : 

"Another  indication  of  the  real  antiquity  of  the  Papal 
claim  to  supremacy  is  the  frantic  assertion,  that  the  Papacy- 
has  attempted  to  antedate  its  assumptions  by  the  use  of 
forgeries.  I  can  hardly  help  treating  contemptuously  this 
unscholarly  talk  about  the  pseudo-decretals,  being  weak 
enough  to  take  satisfaction  that  I  so  far  suspected  its  trivial 
character,  as  never  to  indulge  in  it  myself.  Let  it  suffice 
then  to  remark:  i.  That  the  Isidorian  collection  of  canons 
was  certainly  not  made  at  Rome,  wherever  else  it  may  have 
had  its  origin  ;  and  that  it  was  not  compiled  in  the  interest 
of  the  Popesr  but  as  Guizot  says,  'to  serve  the  bishops 
against  the  metropolitans  and  temporal  sovereigns.'  2. 
That  the  materials  used  in  its  composition  were  not  new, 
but  old,  being  mostly  taken  from  early  Papal  rescripts,  and 
synodal  decrees  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  In  an 
uncritical  age  the  counterfeits  escaped  detection  and  came 
into  gradual  use,  as  being  in  accordance  with  a  long  es- 
tablished and  recognized  system.  In  a  word,  the  imposture 
grew  out  of  the  supremacy,  not  the  supremacy  out  of  the 
imposture.  3.  That  the  pious  fraud  was  exposed  and  repro- 
bated centuries  ago.  All  the  world  knows,  or  ought  to 
know,  that  a  Catholic  would  no  more  think  of  grounding 
the  Papal  supremacy  on  the  compilation  of  Mercator,  than 
would  a  Scotchman  of  vindicating  his  national  literature 
byappealing  to  the  Ossianic  poems,  or  the  good  merchants 
of  Bristol,  of  proving  the  ancient  respectability  of  their 
city  from  the  contents  of  '  Canyng's  coffre.'  The  forged 
decretals  may  be   matter  for  curious  and  learned  investi- 


xii  PREFACE. 

gation,  but  they  are  certainly  ruled  out  of  the  debate  be- 
tween Catholics  and  Protestants,  as  has  been  often  shown. 
If  Protestants  expect  ever  to  capture  the  citadel  of  the 
Papacy,  it  is  time  for  them  to  stop  playing  Chinese  antics 
before  an  old  mound,  which  was  never  used  for  military 
purposes,  and  which  nobody  dreams  of  defending."  It  is 
then,  assuredly,  not  very  creditable  to  a  brilliant  man  to  be 
so  easily  duped,  and  so  long  and  shamefully  enslaved 
to  the  Vatican.  But  what,  may  we  ask,  are  those  ancient 
Catholic  constitutions  of  whose  very  existence  we  are  not 
permitted  to  have  any  knowledge  ?  Will  not  some  kind 
friend,  or  zealous  "Old  Catholic"  enlighten  us,  and  tell  us 
where  we  can  get  a  glimpse  at  them  ?  We  promise  to  in- 
troduce the  study  of  them  into  our  excellent  and  flourishing 
seminary  at  Suspension  Bridge,  and  it  shall  no  longer  be 
said  that  this  kind  of  ignorance  is  common  among  those  edu- 
cated at  Roman  Catholic  seminaries.  But  pleasantry  aside,  we 
firmly  believe  that  what  is  not  known  and  taught  about  the 
Church  of  Christ  and  her  constitutions  in  our  Catholic  sem- 
inaries is  not  worth  knowing,  and  after  the  divine  constitution 
of  the  Church  embodied  in  the  revealed  Word  of  God,  the 
Church  of  Christ  has  no  constitutions,  ancient  or  modern, 
but  such  as  have  been  framed  and  indited  by  Popes  in  re- 
scripts, bulls,  decretals,  etc.,  or  found  in  canonical  enact- 
ments and  ecclesiastical  laws  formulated  by  the  bishops  of 
the  Church  in  diocesan  synods,  provincial,  national,  plenary 
or  oecumenical  councils,  confirmed  and  approved  by  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs,  the  Popes  of 
Rome,  Peter  and  his  successors  in  the  Holy  See. 

►f.  Stephen  Vincent  Ryan, 

Bishop  of  Buffalo. 

Buffalo,  Feast  of  the  Help  of  Christians,  May  24th,  A.  D. 
1880. 


C  LAI M  S 

OF 

A  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  BISHOP 

TO 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  AND  VALID 
ORDERS  DISPROVED. 


I. 

ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 

IN  the  early  part  of  the  year  1874, at  the  request  of 
a  number  of  Catholic  gentlemen  of  Buffalo,  I  deliv- 
ered a  lecture  in  our  Cathedral  in  reply  to  a  sermon 
preached  by  Dr.  Coxe,  at  Erie,  Pa.,  on  occasion  of  the 
consecration  of  John  Franklin  Spaulding,  D.  D.,  and 
published  in  full  in  one  of  our  city  papers.  The 
leading  points  of  the  "  Sermon"  and  "  Reply,"  may  be 
gathered  from  the  following  extracts: 

"  If  a  corporation  of  men  still  exists  on  the  earth, 
bearing  that  identical  commission  given  by  Christ  to 
his  Apostles  after  his  resurrection,  by  historical  trans- 
mission, their  existence  as  such  a  corporation  of  wit- 
nesses is  irrefragable  proof  of  the  fact  that  Christ  rose. 
Now,  nobody  can  deny  that  from  the  time  of  Pontius 


2  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 

Pilate  until  now  a  continuous  line  of  men  has  been 
found  in  divers  parts  of  the  world,  perpetuated  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands  of  those  who  were  before  them." — 
{The  Corporate  Witness.  A  Sermon  by  A.  Cleveland 
Coxe,  preached  Dec.  $\st,  1873,  in  St.  Paul's  Church, 
Erie,  Pa.) 

This  is  perfectly  true;  this  is  orthodox  Catholic  doc- 
trine. It  is  plain  from  sacred  Scripture,  and  known 
to  every  Catholic  child  instructed  in  the  rudiments  of 
Christian  Doctrine  that  the  risen  Saviour  organized 
a  ministry,  instituted  a  commission  that  was  to  be 
perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time  ;  but  that  Dr.  Coxe,  or 
the  ministers  and  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  bear  that  identical  Apos- 
tolical commission  by  historical  transmission,  the 
learned  divine  does  not  prove,  or  even  attempt  to 
prove ;  and  whilst  nobody  can  deny  that  from  the 
time  of  Pontius  Pilate  until  now  a  continuous  line  of 
men  has  been  found  perpetuated  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands  and  the  empowering  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  that 
the  line  comes  down  continuous  and  unbroken  from 
the  Apostles  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  of 
Western  New  York,  we,  with  the  immense  mass  of 
Christians,  beg  most  respectfully  to  question — nay,  em- 
phatically to  deny.  Apostolical  succession,  we  aver, 
is  one  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church  ; 
but  we  hold  it  to  be  a  gratuitous  assumption  that  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  communion  is  that  Church,  or  can 
prove  her  identity  with  that  Church  by  uninterrupted 
succession  from  the  Apostles.  It  will  not  do  to  say : 
"  We  are  profoundly  convinced  of  the  reality  of  our 
Apostolic  commission,"  for  we  can,  with  equal  positive- 
ness  and  depth  of  conviction  aver,  you  have  not  the 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE.  3 

slightest  claim  to  it ;  you  cannot  prove  your  title.  If 
you  cannot  prove  it  satisfactorily,  incontrovertibly  and 
beyond  the  shadow  of  reasonable  doubt,  is  it  not  tri- 
fling with  men,  is  it  not  a  mocking  of  God,  this  pre- 
tended empowering  under  the"  same  charter  and  same 
promises"  as  "  the  original  Apostles  ?"  And  until  we 
have  this  clear  and  incontestible  and  convincing  proof, 
may  we  not  rally  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  as  he 
did  his  Methodist  Episcopal  brother,  when  John  Wesley 
attempted  to  consecrate  Coke  a  bishop : 

"  Our  John  on  Coke  his  hands  has  laid, 
But  who  laid  hands  on  him?" 

{Bishop  Ryan's  Reply,  delivered  in  St.  Joseph's  Cathe- 
dral, Buffalo,  Feb.  22,  1874.) 

"  The  Apostolic  ministry  is  sent  forth  geographically 
around  the  circumference  of  the  globe,  chronologically 
to  the  end  of  time.  So  far,  and  so  long,  'ye  shall  be 
witnesses,'  but  who  shall  be  witnesses?  Ye,  Apostles. 
Is  there  anything  in  Scripture  more  clear,  then,  than 
the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  office?  Those  whom 
our  Lord  thus  addressed  personally  were  not  to  bear 
their  personal  witness  here  in  our  part  of  the  earth, 
yet,  said  the  Master,  'ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me, 
unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth.'  Again,  they 
were  not  to  survive  the  ordinary  limit  of  human  life, 
yet,  he  says,  '  Lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the 
end  of  the  world.'  Could  any  language  be  more  ex- 
plicit? We  assert  that  the  Apostolic  order  and  office 
still  exist.  No  ingenuity  can  make  void  this  evidence 
"  that  our  Lord  designed  to  perpetuate  its  corporate 
identity  until  his  coming  again." — {The  Corporate 
Witness.) 

Here  we  again  tread  Catholic  ground.     With  this 


4  ZRIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 

doctrine,  this  line  of  argument,  and  even  this  language, 
barring  perhaps  some  peculiarity  of  style  and  phrase- 
ology, you,  my  Catholic  friends,  are  familiar.  You  have 
often  heard  it  before  from  this  pulpit.  Neither  the 
doctrine  nor  the  argument  is  new,  and  I  quote  it  at 
such  length  only  to  exhibit  the  strange,  and,  to  me,  in- 
explicable phenomenon,  so  often  displayed,  especially 
among  our  estimable  and  cultivated  Episcopal  brethren, 
of  a  man  holding  principles  and  professing  doctrines 
that  must,  if  logically  followed  up,  inevitably  land  him 
in  the  Catholic  Church  ;  yet,  turning  his  back  upon  her, 
closing  his  eyes  to  the  light  of  reason,  his  intellect  to 
the  plainest  truths  of  revelation,  the  most  evident 
declarations  of  sacred  Scripture. 

Of  course,  the  Apostolic  order  and  office  still  exist; 
of  course,  our  Lord  designed  to  perpetuate  its  cor- 
porate identity  till  his  coming  again.  His  divine  word 
is  pledged  for  it ;  his  veracity  is  at  stake  ;  his  Godhead 
and  divine  mission  guarantee  it :  As  the  Father  sent 
me,  I  also  send  you;"  "Go  teach  all  nations;  I  am 
with  you  all  days  till  the  end  of  time."  But  neither 
Christ  our  Lord  nor  his  revealed  word  declare  that. the 
Apostlic  order  and  office  exist  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  or  are  transmitted  by  the  mutilated,  and 
oft  modified  form  of  consecration  used  in  the  Anglican 
or  Protestant  Episcopal  ordination  service.  Nowhere 
in  Scripture  are  we  told  that  this  corporate  identity 
was  designed  to  be  perpetuated  or  reproduced  in  a 
communion  that  had  no  existence  until  some  fifteen 
hundred  years  after  the  Apostolic  age.  Here  again  is 
a  grave  assumption,  which  we  cannot  take  on  credit; 
we  demand  proof ;  we  find  bare  assertion ;  grand  but 
unproven  claims.     But  hold  !  yes,  here  is  an  attempt 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 


5 


at  proving  legitimate  descent  from  the  Apostles,  by 
way  of  illustration,  in  answer  to  the  objection  that 
"the  original  Apostles  were  extraordinary  in  their  gifts 
and  functions  and  hence  in  the  nature  of  things  could 
have  no  successors."  The  preacher  very  justly  argues : 
11  The  first  President  of  this  Republic  had  extraordi- 
nary functions  and  relations  in  his  high  office ;  it  was 
his.  to  plant,  to  lay  foundations,  to  be  the  father  of  his 
country.  In  all  these  things  he  can  have  no  successor. 
Such  were  his  extraordinary  and  personal  distinctions. 
Do  we  argue,  therefore,  that  the  American  Presidents 
are  not  the  successors  of  Washington?"  The  illustra- 
tion is  excellent,  the  argument  unanswerable  in  the 
month  of  a  Catholic  bishop,  who  holds  his  commission 
immediately  from  a  Pontiff  who  traces  his  succession 
in  unbroken  line  to  the  Apostles — a  Catholic  bishop 
deriving  his  orders  and  his  mission,  his  authority,  right 
to  rule  and  govern  the  Church  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  placed  hirn  a  bishop,  by  the  personal  and 
direct  authorization  of  the  legitimate  successor  of  him 
to  whom  Christ  committed  the  care  of  his  whole  flock, 
and  who  can  furnish  the  clearest  historical  evidence  of 
his  legitimate  descent.  Abraham  Lincoln  or  Ulysses 
S.  Grant  can  claim  to  be  successors  of  Washington. 
Could  Jefferson  Davis  do  the  same  ?  who  rebelled  against 
the  old  legitimate  government  and  set.  up  an  establish- 
ment of  his  own.  He  declared  that  the  powers  at 
Washington  had  violated  the  constitution  and  broken 
the  compact  between  the  States,  just  the  plea  made  by 
the  reformers  to  justify  their  revolt  against  the  author- 
ity of  the  See  of  Rome. 

The  argument,  then,  that  is  conclusive  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  from  the  fact  that  every  Catholic  layman 


6  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 

knows  that  the  pastor  who  ministers  to  him  and  teaches 
him  has  his  orders  and  authority  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands  and  the  grace  of  ordination  from  a  superior 
pastor  or  bishop  of  a  diocese,  who,  in  turn,  is  directly 
authorized  and  commissioned  by  the  Pope,  or  the 
supreme  pastor,  the  supreme  head  of  Christ's  Church 
on  earth,  who  again  comes  down  from  Peter  by  one 
continuous  unbroken  chain,  of  which  we  can  count 
every  link  from  Pius  to  Peter,  is  absolutely  without 
force  in  a  Church  which  has  thrown  off  the  authority 
of  Rome,  and  cannot  trace  its  lineage  to  the  Apostles. 
This  succession  of  chief  pastors  is  the  main,  if  not  the 
only  guarantee,  as  well  of  our  Apostolical  commission 
as  of  the  Apostolicity  of  your  faith  and  doctrine.  It 
is  to  the  chair  of  Peter  and  the  regular  succession  of 
incumbents  in  that  time-honored  and  divinely-guarded 
See,  that  the  early  fathers  and  saints  and  doctors,  in 
every  age,  appealed,  against  unauthorized  teachers  and 
the  innovations  of  heretics,  and  rebellious  schismatics. 
Thus  St.  Augustine  confounds  the  Donatists  :  "  Come 
to  us,  brethren  (he  writes),  if  you  wish  to  be  engrafted 
in  the  vine.  We  are  afflicted  at  seeing  you  cut  off 
from  its  trunk.  Count  over  the  bishops  in  the  very 
See  of  Peter,  and  behold  in  that  list  of  fathers  how  one 
succeeded  to  the  other.  This  is  the  rock  against  which 
the  proud  'gates  of  hell  do  not  prevail.' ,!  Again  he 
says:  "I  am  kept  in  this  Church  by  the  succession  of 
prelates  from  St.  Peter,  to  whom  the  Lord  committed 
the  care  of  his  sheep,  down  to  the  present  bishop." 
(This,  was,  remember,  in  the  5th  century.)  And  St. 
Optatus,  against  the  same  heretics,  enumerates  all  the 
Popes  from  St.  Peter  to  the  then  reigning  Pontiff, 
Siricius ;  "  with  whom  we  and  all  the  world,"  he  says, 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE.  y 

"are  united  in  communion.  Do  you,  now,  Donatists, 
give  the  history  of  your  episcopal  ministry."  Tertul- 
lian,  before,  did  the  same,  and  challenged  the  heretics 
of  his  time  to  produce  the  origin  of  their  Church,  to  dis- 
play the  succession  of  their  bishops,  so  that  the  first 
of  them  may  appear  to  have  been  ordained  by  an 
Apostolic  man  who  persevered  in  their  communion  ; 
and  giving  a  list  of  the  Pontiffs  in  the  Roman  see  he 
says ;  "  Let  the  heretics  feign  anything  like  this."  St. 
Irenaeus,  illustrious  bishop  of  Lyons,  disciple  of  St. 
Polycarp,  who  was  himself  a  disciple  of  St.  John  the 
Apostle,  names  all  the  Popes  to  St.  Eleutherius,  then 
living,  and  says,  "  it  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate  the 
succession  of  bishops  in  the  different  churches;  we 
refer  you  to  that  greatest,  most  ancient  and  universally 
known  Church  founded  at  Rome  by  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  and  which  has  been  preserved  there  through  the 
succession  of  its  bishops  down  to  the  present  time." 
St.  Jerome  knew  no  other  sure  way  of  settling  the 
disputed  rights  of  bishops,  and  writes  to  Pope  Damasus 
in  regard  to  the  heated  controversy  between  St.  Mele- 
tius  and  Paulinus,  rival  claimants  of  the  see  of  Antioch  : 

"I  am  joined  in  communion  with  your  Holiness; 
that  is,  with  the  chair  of  Peter ;  upon  that  rock  I  know 
the  Church  is  built.  I  do  not  know  Vitalis;  I  do  not 
communicate  with  Miletius;  Paulinus  is  a  stranger  to 
me.  Whoever  is  united  to  the  chair  of  Peter,  he  is 
mine." 

So,  also,  St.  Athanasius,  «whose  illustrious  name  is 
dishonored  by  being  coupled  with  the  "  Reformers," 
appeals  to  the  Pope  against  the  heretical  intruders  into 
his  see  of  Alexandria,  and  the  violence  to  which  he 
\yas  subjected  by  the  imperial  power,  and  is  protected 


8  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 

in  his  episcopal  character,  and  his  episcopal  rights 
vindicated  by  Pope  Julius  I.,  who  wrote  thus  in  the 
year  342  to  the  Eastern  bishops,  who  sustained  by  the 
power  of  the  State,  had  driven  Athanasius  from  his  see  : 

"  Know  you  not  that  the  canonical  rule  was  to  recur 
first  to  our  authority,  and  that  the  decisions  must  pro- 
ceed from  it?  Such  is  the  tradition  that  we  have  re- 
ceived from  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  and  I  believe 
it  to  be  so  universally  acknowledged,  that  I  should  not 
recall  it  here  if  these  deplorable  circumstances  did  not 
constrain  me  to  proclaim  it." 

I  dwell  so  long  on  this  point,  although  a  little  beside 
my  purpose,  because  it  shows  us  a  Pope  in  342  Very 
similar  to  our  own  Pope  in  1874,  as  to  this  claim  and 
exercise  of  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church  East 
and  West,  and  it  shows  us  the  great  Athanasius  ap- 
pealing to  the  Pope  against  the  Emperor's  violence  and 
his  servile,  heretical,  courtly  bishops  to  be  anywhere 
but  in  the  same  boat  with  the  martyred  "  reformers," 
who  denied  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  acknowledged 
the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  king,  and  were  by  his 
authority  intruded  into  the  sees  of  lawful  prelates. 

"  Christ  said  we  should'have  such  witnesses  that  they 
should  bear  their  testimony  till  the  consummation  of 
ages.  We  believe  his  promises,  we  accept  them  in  their 
plain  meaning.  And  as  they  are  able  to  demonstrate 
that  their  commission  is  identical  with  that  which  was 
left  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives,  your  bishops  claim, 
however  unworthy,  to  be  \he  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles."— (The  Corporate  Witness.) 

Now  here  again  we  demur,  and  deny  in  toto  the  whole 
claim  of  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America  and  the  bishops  of  their  mother 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE    TREATISE.  g 

Church  of  England  to  Apostolical  succession,  or  that 
the  Apostolical  commission  has  been  preserved  and 
transmitted  in  their  communion,  or  sect,  or  church,  as 
you  may  be  pleased  to  call  it,  for  the  reasons  which  I 
will  now  give,  as  briefly  and  summarily  as  possible. 

If  the  bishops  of  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  have  this  apostolical  succession,  or  this  com- 
mission identical  with  that  which  Christ  our  Lord  gave 
his  Apostles,  they  derive  it  from  the  established  Church 
of  England,  which  they  recognize  as  the  mother 
Church ;  but  if  the  Anglican  bishops  have  no  title  to 
this  claim,  they  cannot  give  it  to  others.  There  is 
an  old  axiom,  Nemo  dat  quod  non  habet.  Now,  the 
Anglican  Church  has  no  .part  in  the  Apostolical  com- 
mission, unless  it  can  trace  its  orders  and  its  mission 
regularly  from  the  Apostles  through  the  Catholic 
bishops.  But  this  it  can  hardly  consistently  attempt 
to  do,  as  it  declared  in  one  of  its  Homilies  the  Catholic 
Church  to  have  been  "  drowned  in  abominable  idolatry, 
most  detested  of  God  and  damnable  to  man,  for  the 
space  of  eight  hundred  years,"  and  in  one  of  the 
thirty-nine  articles  "  that  all  the  Apostolical  sees  erred 
in  matters  of  faith."  Could  Matthew  Parker,  the  first 
Anglican  bishop,  whilst  denying  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  and  in  open  revolt  against  the  Apostolical  See, 
claim  to  hold  his  authority  and  his  commission  from 
the  Church  whose  corruptions  he  denounced,  and  not 
one  of  whose  bishops  would  impose  hands  on  him  ?  In 
the  early  Church,  bishops  appealed  for  their  legitimacy, 
for  their  rights  and  power,  for  their  Apostolical  suc- 
cession, to  the  Roman  Pontiff;  his  see  was  styled 
eminently  and  emphatically  the  Apostolical  See;  he  was 
the  trunk  to  which  all  the  branches  should  be  united. 


10  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE    TREATISE. 

But  the  Church  of  England  revolted  against  his  au- 
thority, severed  itself  from  his  communion,  renounced 
it  on  account  of  its  "  idolatry,"  and  was  denounced  by 
it,  in  turn,  as  heretical. 

It  is  a  universally  admitted  principle  of  Church 
government,  recognized  here  in  our  own  country  by  the 
practice  of  every  Church,  and  by  decisions  of  the  courts 
of  justice,  that  a  clergyman  from  whom  authority  is 
withdrawn  according  to  the  rules  and  laws  of  the 
Church  to  which  he  may  have  been  attached,  who  is  no 
longer  recognized  as  a  minister  by  his  proper  ecclesi- 
astical superior,  can  no  longer  claim  to  act  for  that 
Church  ;  his  ministrations  are  not  regarded,  his  minis- 
terial functions  are  no  longer  lawful.  (I  wonder  if 
Bishop  Cheney  is  recognized  as  a  legitimate  bishop  and 
successor  of  the  Apostles  by  Bishop  Coxe?  We  know 
not  what  action  the  Episcopal  body  may  have  taken 
in  this  matter,  but  we  do  know  that  he  cannot  be  so 
recognized,  unless  at  the  cost  of  consistency,  authority 
aad  unity.) 

We  also  know  from  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  all  ages,  that  when  a  bishop  or  a  priest,  or 
bishops  and  priests,  revolted  against  the  Church  in 
which  they  were  ordained  and  commissioned,  they  were 
by  the  very  fact  deprived  of  all  authority  to  act  in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  ;  they  were 
silenced  or  suspended,  deprived  of  their  faculties  and 
deposed  from  their  sees.  This  was  the  case  with  the 
early  heretics,  the  Donatists,  Eutychians,  the  Arians, 
and  others,  who  had  validly  ordained  bishops;  but 
surely  no  orthodox  Anglican  or  Episcopalian  will  aver 
that  these  heretical  bishops  were  successors  of  the 
Apostles.     Something  more  than  valid  ordination  or 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE.  || 

the  laying  on  of  hands  is  necessary  to  perpetuate  the 
Apostolical  commission.  On  these  principles,  held  and 
acted  on  by  all  religious  denominations  in  the  govern- 
ment of  their  respective  societies,  we  maintain  that 
Matthew  Parker,  first  Anglican  bishop,  even  if  validly 
ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  with  due  form  of 
prayers  and  solemnities,  and  a  lawful  ordainer,  could 
not  transmit  jurisdiction,  or  a  share  of  Apostolical 
commission,  or  right  to  minister  in  the  Church,  because 
he  himself  did  not  possess  it. 

But  we  absolutely  deny  the  validity  of  his  consecra- 
tion, and  thus  strike  at  the  very  root  of  all  pretensions 
in  the  Anglican  and  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
America  to  Apostolical  succession.  We  can  only  sum- 
marily state  the  grounds  of  our  positive  unconditional 
denial.  It  is  very  doubtful,  and  can  never  be  proved 
that  he  was  ever  consecrated  at  all,  or  that  there  was 
anything  more  than  the  farce  of  the  "  Nag's  Head." 
The  Lambeth  Register  is  probably  a  forgery.  Even  if 
it  be  genuine,  and  the  consecration  took  place  as  as- 
serted, at  the  hands  of  Barlow,  an  apostate  monk,  it  is 
very  doubtful  that  Barlow  himself  was  ever  consecrated, 
or  ever  anything  more  than  a  bishop  elect.  Even  if 
Barlow  was  a  regularly  consecrated  bishop,  and  went 
through  the  form  of  consecrating  Parker,  the  form  used, 
namely,  that  devised,  as  the  act  has  it,  by  Edward,  was 
notoriously  insufficient  and  invalid,  so  that  acts  of  Par- 
liament were  deemed  necessary  to  supply  defects,  in 
this  wise: 

— "And  all  persons  that  have  been  or  shall  be  made, 
ordered  or  consecrated  archbishops,  bishops,  priests, 
ministers  of  God's  Word  and  sacraments,  or  deacons, 
after  the  form  and  order  prescribed,  be  in  very  deed, 


12  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 

and  also  by  authority  hereof,  declared  and  enacted  to 
be,  and  shall  be  archbishops,  bishops,  priest's,  ministers. 
and  deacons,  and  rightly  made,  ordered,  and  conse- 
crated." 

Thus  there  is  some  ground  for  styling  them  "  Parlia- 
ment bishops,"  as  they  were  commonly  styled;  and  at 
least  it  is  evident  that  there  was  doubt  as  to  the  validity 
of  the  form  devised  by  Edward,  to  which  this  statute 
of  Elizabeth  (1566)  refers.  In  Harding's  controversy 
with  the  Anglican  Bishop  Jewel,  he  asks:  "You  bear 
yourself  as  the  legitimate  bishop  of  Salisbury,  but  how 
can  you  prove  your  vocation  ?  Who  hath  laid  hands 
on  you;  how,  and  by  whom  were  you  consecrated?" 
and,  in  reply  to  the  declaration  of  the  latter,  that  he 
was  consecrated  by  Parker,  Harding  subjoins,  "  How,  I 
pray  you,  was  your  archbishop  himself  consecrated  ? 
Your  metropolitan,  who  should  give  authority  to  all 
your  consecrations,  had  himself  no  lawful  consecration. 
There  were,  indeed,  some  lawful  bishops  in  the  king- 
dom who  either  were  not  required  to  impose  hands  on 
you,  or  who,  being  required,  refused  to  do  so."  And 
again,  rallying  him  on  the  statute  of  Parliament  making 
good  and  valid  defective  forms  of  consecration:  "If 
you  will  needs  have  your  matters  seem  to  depend  of 
your  Parliament,  let  us  not  be  blamed,  if  we  call  it  a 
Parliament  religion,  Parliament  gospel,  Parliament 
faith." 

Learned  divines  from  the  very  beginning  reproached 
the  bishops  of  the  establishment  with  invalidity  of 
their  orders.  Sanders,  regius  professor  of  canon  law 
at  Oxford,  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  says :  "  For  being 
destitute  of  all  lawful  ordination,  they  were  constrained 
to  crave  the  assistance  of  the  secular  power,  by  au- 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE.  ^ 

thority  whereof,  if  anything  were  done  amiss  and  not 
according  to  the  prescript  of  the  law,  or  omitted  and 
left  undone  in  the  former  inauguration,  it  might  be 
pardoned  them,  and  that  after  they  had  enjoyed  the 
episcopal  office  and  chair  many  years  without  any 
episcopal  consecration."  Bristow,  another  divine  of 
the  same  period,  who  died  in  1582,  says:  "  In  England 
the  King,  yea  the  Queen,  may  give  their  letters  patent 
to  whom  they  will,  and  they  thenceforward  may  bear 
themselves  as  bishops  and  may  begin  to  ordain  minis- 
ters." And  of  Parker  and  others  who  had  been 
Catholic  priests,  he  says,  "they  were  deemed,  without 
a  new  ordination,  to  be  not  only  priests,  but  bishops  and 
archbishops,  either  by  virtue  of  the  royal  letters,  or  by 
a  certain  ridiculous  consecration  of  those  who  had  re- 
ceived no  power  to  consecrate,  except  what  the  Queen 
had  given  them."  Whatever  opinion  we  may  form  as 
to  the  question  whether  Parker  was  consecrated  at 
Lambeth  or  not,  and  as  to  whether  Barlow,  his  pre- 
tended consecrator,  was  a  bishop  or  not  (for  these  are 
matters  of  opinion  to  be  determined  by  historical  re- 
search), yet  it  is  absolutely  certain,  that,  on  account  of 
the  form  used,  Anglican,  and  consequently  Protestant 
Episcopal,  orders  are  vitiated  and  invalidated ;  and 
hence,  though  the  Church  has  acknowledged  the 
validity  of  ordination  in  the  Greek  Church,  and  even 
the  validity  of  the  consecration  of  the  Jansenist  bishops 
of  Holland,  and,  in  fact,  of  all  who  preserved  the  regular 
ancient  form,  yet  she  never  would  recognize  as  bishops 
or  priests,  those  ordained  by  the  forms  devised  by 
Edward  VI.;  and  Dr.  Milner  expresses  the  mind  of 
the  Catholic  Church  when  he  says,  "  that  the  form  used 
in  the  English  Church  previous  to  1662  is  just  as  proper 


14 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 


for  the  ceremony  of  confirming,  or  laying  hands  on 
children,  as  it  is  for  conferring  the  powers  of  the  epis- 
copacy." The  Church  established  by  law  seems  to 
have  felt  this  herself,  for,  in  that  year  (1662),  just  one 
hundred  and  three  years  too  late  to  save  Anglican 
orders,  convocation  changed  the  form,  evidently  with 
the  aim  of  supplying  the  defect  pointed  out  by  Catho- 
lic divines.  Macaulay,  in  his  history  of  England,  af- 
firms that,  in  1661  Episcopal  ordination  was  for  the  first 
time  made  an  indispensable  condition  for  Church 
preferment."  Lord  Macaulay  is,  indeed,  a  brilliant 
essayist,  but  rather  an  unreliable  historian,  and  his 
statements,  unless  corroborated  by  other  testimony,  we 
would  hardly  trust ;  yet  we  know  from  other  sources 
that  then,  as  now,  the  Church  of  England  and  its 
daughter  in  America  might  be  said  to  hold  anything 
and  everything  on  this  point  of  Apostolical  succession, 
or  the  transmission  of  episcopal  powers  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands. 

Let  us  see  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  early  re- 
formers. Let  us  see  how  Cranmer  himself,  the  model 
reformer,  according  to  Dr.  Coxe,  viewed  this  matter. 
Cranmer  says:  "  In  the  New  Testament  he  that  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  bishop  or  a  priest  needeth  no  consecra- 
tion, by  the  Scripture,  for  election,  or  appointing  there- 
to, is  sufficient."  Again:  "  Bishops  and  priests  were  no 
two  things,  but  one  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's 
religion."  Again:  "A  bishop  may  make  a  priest,  by 
the  Scripture,  and  so  may  princes,  and  governors,  also, 
and  that  by  the  authority  of  God."  Burnet,  in  his  his- 
tory of  the  Reformation,  tells  us:  "Cranmer  had,  at  this 
time,  some  particular  opinions  concerning  ecclesiastical 
offices — that  they  were  delivered  from  the  king  as  other 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 


15 


civil  offices  were,  and  that  ordination  was  not  indispen- 
sably necessary,  and  was  only  a  ceremony  that  might 
be  used  or  laid  aside,  and  that  authority  was  delivered 
to  churchmen  only  by  the  king's  commission."  In 
his  address  to  Henry,  in  connection  with  the  other 
mean,  servile  English  bishops  to  whom  the  noble  and 
venerable  Fisher  of  Rochester  was  an  illustrious  excep- 
tion, Cranmer  said  :  "All  jurisdiction,  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical, flowed  from  the  king,  and  that  they  exercised 
it  only  at  the  king's  courtesy."  Courayer,  himself  an 
apostate,  the  ablest  defender  of  Anglican  orders  and 
Apostolical  succession,  says :  "Cranmer and  Barlow,  two 
of  the  prelates  appointed  to  reform  the  public  liturgy 
and  form  of  ordination,  were  notoriously  erroneous  in 
the  matter  of  orders,  and  it  is  but  too  apparent  that 
the  chief  aim  of  these  divines  and  prelates  was  to  ex- 
tinguish episcopacy."  The  same  author  says  of  Barlow: 
— "Among  many  errors  which  he  was  accused  of  spread- 
ing, he  was  charged  with  having  maintained  this  prop- 
osition— '  that  if  the  King's  Grace,  being  the  supreme 
head  of  the  Church,  did  choose,  denominate  and  elect 
any  layman  to  be  a  bishop,  he  so  chosen  should  be  as 
good  a  bishop  as  he  is,  or  the  best  in  England.'  '  I  will 
conclude  this  point  with  the  forcible  words  of  Dr. 
Milner: 

"  The  acknowledgment  of  a  royal  ecclesiastical  su- 
premacy '  in  all  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  things  and 
causes,'  (oath  of  supremacy  as  when  the  question  is 
who  shall  preach,  baptize,  etc.,  and  who  shall  not,  what 
is  sound  doctrine,  and  what  is  not)  is  decidedly  a  re- 
nunciation of  Christ's  commission  given  to  his  Apos- 
tles, and  preserved  by  their  successors  in  the  Catholic 
Apostolic  Church.     Hence  it  clearly  appears  that  there 


i6  ORIGIN  OF  OCR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 

is  and  can  be  no  Apostolical  succession  of  ministry  in 
the  established  Church  more  than  in  the  other  congre- 
gations or  societies  of  Protestants.  All  their  preaching 
and  ministering  in  their  several  degrees  is  performed 
by  mere  human  authority.  On  the  other  hand,  not  a 
sermon  is  preached,  nor  a  child  baptized,  nor  a  peni- 
tent absolved,  nor  a  priest  ordained,  nor  a  bishop  con- 
secrated throughout  the  whole  extent  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  without  the  minister  of  such  function  being 
able  to  show  his  authority  from  Christ  for  what  he 
does,  in  the  commission  of  Christ  to  his  Apostles — 
'All  power  in  Heaven  and  earth  is  given  to  me;  go 
ye,  therefore,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  etc.,' 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  without  being  able  to  prove  his 
claim  to  that  commission  of  Christ  by  producing  the 
table  of  his  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apos- 
tles." ^  ■ 

You  are  then  perfectly  right,  Dr.  Coxe ;  the  Apostolic 
ministry  was  to  be  perpetuated  by  transmission  of  the 
commission  given  by  Christ  to  his  Apostles;  but  it  is 
and  can  be  perpetuated  only  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  by  the  unbroken  line  of  pontiffs  in  the  only 
Apostolic  See  that  has  had  such  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession, the  See  of  Rome ;  and  whosoever  believes  in 
the  existence  of  such  a  historic  transmission,  must,  if 
logical,  acknowledge  in  Pius  a  successor  of  Peter,  and 
in  the  Pope  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction,  supreme  author- 
ity to  guide  and  govern  the  universal  Church,  to  com- 
mission and  qualify  witnesses,  to  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth — must,  in  one  word,  become  a  Catholic. 
We  thank,  however,  the  outspoken  bishop  for  this 
enunciation  of  an  essential  principle  of  Christian  faith, 
for  this  recognition  of  an  essential  mark  of  the  true 


ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE  TREATISE. 


17 


Church,  this  strong  testimony  to  the  divine  character, 
constitution  and  organization  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
and  in  all  earnestness  and  Christian  charity,  we  ask  him 
and  our  many  estimable  Episcopalian  friends  in  Buffalo 
to  investigate  for  themselves  this  interesting  subject, 
without  bias  or  prejudice — to  examine  the  records  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  to  prove  to  themselves  their 
claims  to  come  down  from  the  Apostles  ;  to  trace  their 
hierarchy  to  the  Apostolic  age,  so  that  with  undoubt- 
ing  certainty  and  absolute  conviction  of  their  reason 
they  may  consistently  hold  their  communion,  their 
Church,  to  be  identical  in  ministry,  in  orders  and  mis- 
sion, with  the  Apostolic  Church. 

Does  truthful  history  warrant  such  a  belief?  On  the 
contrary,  does  not  history  show  to  any  unbiassed 
reader,  that  the  Church  of  England  started  with  Henry 
VIII.  making  himself  the  head  of  the  Church  and 
source  of  all  its  authority  and  jurisdiction,  modifyingthe 
Church  discipline  to  meet  this  most  unapostolical  and 
unwarrantable  pretension,  and  thus  forcibly  and  miser- 
ably tearing  away  the  English  Church  from  the  parent 
stock,. forcing  her  into  rebellion,  cutting  off  all  com- 
munication with  the  main  trunk  and  seat  and  source 
of  Apostolical  jurisdiction,  the  only  see  in  the  whole 
of  Christendom  through  which  it  is  any  way  possible 
to  trace  Apostolical  succession  ? — BisJiop  Ryan  s  Reply 
to  the  Corporate  Witness. 

To  this  reply.  Dr.  Coxe  published  a  rejoinder,  "  Catho- 
lics and  Roman  Catholics,  by  an  old  Catholic"  which  in 
turn  was  reviewed  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  "  Catho- 
lic Union"  published  in  Buffalo.  The  substance  of 
these  articles  we  are  now  induced  to  republish  in  a 
more  permanent  form,  in  the  hope  that  the  discussion 


1%  ORIGIN  OF  OUR  LITTLE   TREATISE. 

of  the  question  of  Apostolical  succession  may  prove 
interesting  and  instructive,  especially  .to  our  worthy 
and  esteemed  Episcopalian  friends,  who  believe  with 
Dr.  Coxe  that,  "  from  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate  until 
now,  a  continuous  line  of  men  has  been  found  perpetu- 
ated by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  the  empowering  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  who,  in  good  faith,  and  with  un- 
questioning docility,  accept  the  claims  of  their  bishops 
to  be  successors  of  the  Apostles,  with  "  commissions 
identical  with  that  left  on  the  Mount  of  Olives."  As 
this  is  no  personal  controversy,  but  one  on  which  we 
enter  solely  in  the  interest  of  Truth,  and  with  a  view 
of  promoting  the  salvation  of  souls,  we  shall  refrain  as 
much  as  possible  from  personal  allusions,  and  as  we 
purpose  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  question  of  Apos- 
tolical succession,  we  will  allow  ourselves  to  be  carried 
away  by  side  issues,  or  to  the  discussion  of  other  mat- 
ters, only  in  as  far  as  they  may  have  a  bearing  on  the 
question  at  issue,  or  may  be  forced  on  us. 


APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ESSENTIAL. 


19 


II. 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ESSENTIAL  TO  WiE  CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH — IT  IS  NOT  FOUND  EITHER  IN  THE 
ANGLICAN  CHURCH,  AS-BY-LAW-ESTABLISHED,  OR 
THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  OF  AMERICA. 

WE  deny  then  in  toto  that  Apostolical  succession 
has  been  preserved  or  transmitted  in  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  of  America,  or  in  the  Anglican 
establishment.  Let  it,  moreover,  be  borne  in  mind  that 
there  can  be  here  no  question  as  to  Apostolical  succes- 
sion being  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church. 
It  is  well  demonstrated  from  Holy  Writ,  that  our  Lord 
founded  a  corporate  order  of  witnesses,  who  should  be 
an  extension  of  Himself,  a  prolonging  of  His  personal 
mission,  and  nobody  can  deny  that  from  the  time  of 
Pontius  Pilate  until  now,  a  continuous  line  of  men  has 
been  found  in  divers  parts  of  the  world,  perpetuated  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands  of  those  who  were  before  them. 
It  is  evident  from  sacred  Scripture,  it  is  known  to  all 
who  read  their  Bible,  that  the  risen  Saviour  organized 
a  ministry,  a  body  of  teachers,  and  sent  them  to  teach 
all  nations,  promising  to  be  with  them  to  the  end  of 
ages,  and  hence  their  commission  was  to  continue,  they 
were  to  be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  ages.  Continu- 
ous and  unbroken  succession  from  the  Apostles  is,  then, 


20  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ESSENTIAL 

unquestionably,  a  fundamental  doctrine,  an  essential 
note  of  the  Christian  Church.  We  are  willing  to  allow 
that,  "  only  in  the  perpetuated  historic  identity  of  the 
Apostolic  commission  can  we  find  monumental  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,"  and  consequently  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity;  and  again:  "the  canon  of 
Scripture  itself  depends  on  it ;  you  cannot  prove  your 
Bible  authentic  without  it."  Only  those  who  can  satis- 
factorily and  certainly  trace  the  historic  identity  of 
their  ministry  with,  and  their  legitimate  descent  from, 
the  Apostles,  can  have  any  certainty  of  the  reality  of 
the  resurrection,  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  of  the 
canonicity  and  authenticity  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
But  this  identity  and  Apostolic  succession,  confessedly 
essential  to.  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  the  Episcopal 
Church  cannot  show,  and  therefore  the  Episcopal 
Church  cannot  prove  herself  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 
Nay,  more,  only  in  the  Catholic  Church,  in  communion 
with  the  See  of  Rome,  the  Apostolical  See,  can  this 
identity  be  found  and  clearly  demonstrated,  and  there- 
fore all  who  hold  this  identity,  this  succession  from  the 
Apostles  as  a  necessary  characteristic,  and  distinc- 
tive mark  of  the  Christian  Church,  must,  if  logical  and 
consistent,  go  over  to  Rome,  towards  which  their  faces 
are  plainly  set.  Woe  betide  them  if  they  look  back. 
Unfortunately,  Lots  wife  is  not  a  solitary  instance  of 
the  terrible  judgment  awaiting  those  who  close  their 
eyes  to  the  light  of  truth,  and  harden  their  hearts  to 
the  inspirations  of  grace,  who  through  undue  attach- 
ment to  the  things  of  earth,  or  over-much  affection  to 
family  and  friends,  love  of  lucre  or  pride  of  intellect, 
through  want  of  moral  courage  to  bear  the  poverty 
and  humility  of  the  cross,  stifle  the  voice  of  conscience 


TO   THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  2\ 

halt  in  their  search  for  truth,  and  turn  back  when  on 
the  very  point  of  escaping  from  the  Babel  of  confusion. 
Many  such  in  our  experience  we  have  met,  monuments 
of  the  justice  of  God,  beacons  of  warning  to  those  who 
close  their  hearts  to  grace,  their  eyes  to  truth,  real 
pillars  of  salt,  their  lives  produce  only  dead  sea  fruit; 
notwithstanding  outside  deceitful  appearances  they 
are  filled  with  ashes  and  wormwood. 

As  to  the  value  to  be  attached  to  assertions  like 
these:  "The  succession  in  the  Church  of  England  is 
more  demonstrably  canonical  and  regular,  in  all  par- 
ticulars, than  any  other  succession  in  Christendom," 
or  "  It  may  be  shown  that  nobody  competent  to  form 
an  opinion,  and  who  has  taken  the  pains  to  investigate 
the  matter,  has  ever  professed  a  doubt  concerning 
Anglican  succession;"  our  readers  will  be  able  to  judge 
presently.  Apostolical  succession  requires,  as  those 
making  the  above  assertions  admit,  something  more 
than  valid  ordination.  We  may  admit  not  only  the 
fact,  but  also  the  validity  of  a  bishop's  consecration, 
and  yet  deny  him,  even  though  validly  consecrated, 
any  participation  in  the  divine  commission  given  by 
Christ  to  His  Apostles,  any  claim  to  Apostolical  suc- 
cession. Valid  ordination  is  essential  to,  but  insuffi- 
cient for,  legitimate  succession.  In  the  whole  history 
of  the  Christian  Church,  there  is  nothing  more  evident 
than  this,  that  when  a  bishop  or  priest,  or  bishops  and 
priests,  revolted  against  ecclesiastical  authority,  or  con- 
tumaciously erred  against  faith,  they  were  silenced,  sus- 
pended, deprived  of  their  faculties,  deposed  from  their 
sees.  The  Church,  which  had  commissioned  them  and 
given  them  authority,  jurisdiction,  a  right  to  teach,  and 
assigned   them   a  mission   in  which    to  exercise   their 


22  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ESSENTIAL 

ministry,  simply  revoked  their  commission,  recalled  her 
grant  of  powers,  and  annulled  all  license  to  act  for  her,  in 
her  name,  or  by  her  authority.  Thus  she  acted  towards 
the  validly  ordained  and  rightly  consecrated  heretical 
Donatist,  Eutychian  and  Arian  bishops ;  and  who 
among  our  orthodox  Anglicans  or  Episcopalians  will 
recognize  such  excommunicated,  deposed  and  deprived 
heretical  bishops  as  successors  of  the  Apostles.  She 
holds  the  same  principles  to-day;  schismatical  and 
heretical  bishops  such  as  the  bishops  of  the  Greek 
Church,  the  Jansenist  bishops  of  Holland,  and  even 
Reinkens,  the  itinerant  Old  Catholic  bishop  of  Germany, 
even  if  validly  ordained,  have  no  share  in  the  Apos- 
tolical commission,  have  no  jurisdiction,  they  are  not 
sent,  and  how  shall  they  preach?  They  are  thus  cut 
off  from  communion  with  the  Church,  broken  off  from 
the  chain  of  Apostolical  succession.  Again,  it  is  equally 
certain,  and  the  history  of  the  Church  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles  bears  witness,  that  bishops  appealed 
in  proof  of  their  legitimacy,  their  right  and  authority 
to  take  and  hold  and  govern  their  respective  sees,  to 
the  See  of  Rome,  the  See  of  Peter,  because  from  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Church  the  bishops  of  the  whole 
Christian  world  acknowledged  the  primacy  of  the  See 
of  Peter,  the  universal  jurisdiction  and  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  successors  of  Peter,  whom  Christ  Him- 
self commissioned  to  feed  and  govern  his  whole  flock. 
This  primacy  of  jurisdiction  was  necessary  to  maintain 
in  unity  of  faith,  a  Church  destined  to  spread  over  and 
embrace  the  habitable  globe,  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and 
from  pole  to  pole.  This  supreme  authority  vested  in 
the  Apostolic  See,  not  by  the  canons,  but  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Himself  in  founding  His  Church,  the  bishops  in 


TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


23 


every  age  admitted,  and  none  perhaps  more  unequiv- 
ocally than  the  great  Bossuet,  whom  "  Old  Catholic" 
loves  to  quote.  "  All,"  says  the  eloquent  bishop  of 
Meaux,  "  are  subject  to  the  keys  of  Peter,  kings  and 
people,  prelates  and  priests ;  we  own  it  with  joy,  for 
we  love  unity,  and  glory  in  obedience." 

Communion  with  the  See  of  Rome,  recognition  of 
spiritual  supremacy,  and  primacy  of  jurisdiction  in  the 
See  of  Peter,  was  not  only  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  but 
the  proof  of  legitimacy  and  the  guaranty  of  Apos- 
tolic succession.  Now  the  Anglican  bishops  in  the 
time  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Elizabeth  dis- 
owned all  allegiance  in  spiritual  matters  to  the  Sovereign 
Pontiffs,  revolted  against  Peter's  authority,  and  re- 
nounced his  spiritual  supremacy,  and  thus  was  brought 
about  that  change  in  the  religious  system  "  under 
which,"  says  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  in  his  historical 
lectures  on  the  Reformation,  "  our  forefathers  during 
more  than  a  thousand  years  lived  and  died.  It  was 
Henry's  lustful  revenge  and  rapacity  that  removed  the 
key-stone  of  the  arch,  the  principle  of  unity,  by  which 
under  one  head  appointed  by  Jesus  Christ,  there  was 
formed  of  all  the  nations  and  kingdoms  of  the  earth, 
one  Catholic  or  universal  kingdom,  believing  in  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one'baptism,  and  one  Church." 

The  historian,  Dr.  Heylin,  in  the  preface  to  his"  His- 
tory of  the  Reformation,"  acknowledges  "that  Henry, 
finding  the  Pope  the  greatest  obstacle  to  his  desires, 
divested  him  by  degrees  of  that  supremacy,  which  had 
been  challenged  and  enjoyed  by  his  predecessors  for 
some  ages  past,  and  finally  extinguished  his  authority 
in  the  realm  of  England."  The  king's  authority  was 
substituted  for  the  Pope's,  the  king's  spiritual  suprem- 


24  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ESSENTIAL 

acy,  and  not  the  Pope's,  was  now  invoked,  and  the 
king  was  declared  to  be  the  fountain  of  all  jurisdiction, 
both  temporal  and  spiritual.  In  the  oath  of  supremacy 
exacted  from  all  archbishops  and  bishops  in  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  the  prelates  were  obliged  to  swear  that 
their  right  and  mission  to  preach  and  to  minister  were 
derived  from  the  civil  power  only,  and  before  conse- 
cration the  bishop  elect  was  made  to  "  acknowledge 
and  confess  that  he  holds  his  bishopric  as  well  in 
spirituals  as  temporals  from  her  alone,  and  the  crown 
royal."  Not  from  the  Apostles,  then,  to  whom  it  was 
said  "go  and  teach  all  nations,"  etc.,  but  from  a  vin- 
dictive, lustful  king,  a  sickly  boy,  and  a  bad  woman, 
do  the  Anglican  bishops  derive  their  commission  and 
jurisdiction,  and  very  correctly  does  Dr.  Milner,  whom 
no  one  acquainted  with  the  man  or  his  writings  would 
call  ignorant,  argue  that  "  the  acknowledgment  of 
royal  ecclesiastical  supremacy  '  in  all  spriritual  and  ec- 
clesiastical things  or  causes' is  decidedly  a  renunciation 
of  Christ's  commission  given  to  His  Apostles,  and  pre- 
served by  their  successors  in  the  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church."  Hence  it  clearly  appears  that  there  is,  and 
can  be,  no  Apostolical  succession  of  ministry  in  the 
established  Church. 

The  line  of  Apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of 
England  was  then  broken  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII., 
the  breach  widened  under  Edward  VI.,  the  rupture 
partially  healed  under  Mary,  was  re-opened  under 
Elizabeth,  when  the  chain  reaching  from  Augustine 
and  through  him  from  the  Apostles  (for  he  was  sent 
and  commissioned  by  Pope  Gregory),  down  to  Cardinal 
Pole,  was  ruthlessly  and  hopelessly  severed  by  Parker's 
intrusion  into  the  See  of  Canterbury.     Parker  held  his 


TO    THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


25 


commission,  and  acknowledged  on  oath  that  he  held 
his  commission  and  jurisdiction,  his  right  and  authority 
to  preach,  teach,  and  administer  sacraments  from  the 
crown,  from  her  majesty,  and  her  majesty's  pliant 
Parliament. 


26  COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OP  PETER 


III. 


COMMUNION   WITH   THE  SEE   OF   PETER   THE   TEST  OF 
LEGITIMATE   SUCCESSION. 

ARBITRARY  and  tyrannical  rulers,  aided  by  servile 
Parliaments,  and  an  intimidated  clergy,  dissevered 
the  Church  of  England  from  what  was  known  through- 
out Christendom,  East  and  West,  as  emphatically  and 
pre-eminently  the  Apostolic  See,  the  See  of  Rome,  the 
only  See  to  which  it  is  possible  to-day  for  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  appeal,  to  prove  with  certainty  her 
Apostolical  origin,  to  attest  the  historic  transmission 
of  the  Apostolic  commission,  to  vouch  for  the  corporate 
identity  of  her  bishops  with  the  original  witnesses.  To 
this  Roman  See,  centre  and  source  of  unity,  because 
vested  with  supreme  authority  and  universal  jurisdic- 
tion, and  to  the  unbroken  succession  of  Sovereign 
Pontiffs,  in  the  same,  the  primitive  Church,  the  early 
fathers,  saints  and  doctors  ever  appealed  against  un- 
authorized teachers,  innovating  heretics,  and  rebellious 
schismatics.  Whosoever  were  not  united  to  the  chair 
of  Peter,  were  not  regarded  as  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles ;  nay,  by  the  fact  of  their  not  belonging  to  that 
leading  succession,  they  were,  as  St.  Irenaeus  tells  us, 
to  be  suspected  as  heretics  and  schismatics.  A  bishop, 
then,  even  when  rightly  ordained  or  validly  consecrated, 
if  he  apostatize  from  the  faith,  rebel  against  the  recog- 


THE  TEST  OF  LEGITIMA  TE  SUCCESSION. 


27 


nized  authority  of  the  Church,  and  be  cut  off  from  her 
communion,  cannot  pretend  to  any  share  in  the  com- 
mission which  comes  down  by  historical  transmission 
from  the  Apostles  ;  hence,  though  Matthew  Parker  suc- 
ceeded Warham  and  Pole  in  the  See  of  Canterbury, 
even  allowing  that  he  were  actually  and  validly  conse- 
crated, would  no  more  be  a  successor  of  the  Apostles 
than  Jeff.  Davis  was  a  successor  of  Washington.  This 
Dr.  Kenrick  thus  expresses:  "As  well  might  Crom- 
well be  considered  one  of  the  Stuart  kings  of  England, 
or  Napoleon  Bonaparte  one  of  the  Bourbon  race,  as 
Matthew  Parker,  even  if  validly  ordained — be  regarded 
as  a  link  added  to  the  chain  of  Catholic  archbishops 
of  Canterbury,  reaching  down  from  St.  Augustine  to 
Cardinal  Pole,  in  whom  that  illustrious  series  of  Pon- 
tiffs finally  ceased." 

We  moreover  assert  that  full  communion  with  the 
See  of  Rome  was  the  test  of  orthodoxy  and  legitimacy, 
not  only  in  the  primitive  Church,  but  was  the  test  of 
the  orthodoxy  and  legitimacy  of  the  bishops  of  Eng- 
land, down  to  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  To  the  testi- 
mony already  adduced  from  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  and 
Dr.  Heylin,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  we 
will  only  add  the  following.  Dodd,  in  his  "Church 
History  of  England,"  quotes  a  remarkable  speech  which 
some,  says  the  historian,  ascribe  to  Bishop  Fisher. 
"  Whoever  the  person  was,  he  takes  the  liberty  to 
say  that  the  cause  (the  royal  supremacy)  was  of  the 
greatest  consequence,  that  he  could  wish  the  king  were 
capable  of  that  power  he  aimed  at;  that  it  was  an  at- 
tempt directly  opposite  to  the  practice  of  the  English 
nation,  in  all  former  ages ;  that  it  was  depriving  the 
ecclesiastical   body  of   a   spiritual   head,  much   more 


28  COMMUNION   WITH  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

necessary  than  in  temporal  affairs;  that  no  spiritual 
jurisdiction  was  ever  looked  upon  as  valid,  without  the 
approbation  of  the  See  of  Rome ;  that  the  See  of  Rome 
was  the  centre  of  unity,  by  whose  authority  heresy  had 
always  been  suppressed,  and  princes  reconciled  by 
submitting  to  her  decisions  and  arbitration ;  in  fine, 
Rome  was  a  kind  of  court  of  chancery  to  all  nations 
that  professed  Christianity;  and  those  that  were 
divided  from  her,  would  be  like  branches  cut  off  from 
the  tree  of  life." 

Please  to  mark  well  the  words  that  the  "attempt  of 
Henry  was  directly  opposite  to  the  practice  of  the  English 
nation  in  all  former  ages ;  that  no  spiritual  jurisdiction 
was  looked  upon  as  valid  without  approbation  of  the  See 
of  Rome,  and  that  those  divided  from  Rome  would  be  like 
brandies  cut  off  from  the  tree  of  life!' 

This  certainly  does  not  tally  with  what  the  claimant 
of  Anglican  succession  asserts  on  this  subject :  "Henry  s 
supremacy  was  based  on  ancient  rights  of  the  crown  which 
he  merely  re-assumed /"  and,  "gradually  by  unlawful  en- 
croachment the  Papacy  was  formed  in  Western  Europe, 
and  so,  gradually,  its  usurpatioyi  extended  to  England." 
And  again:  "Queen  Mary,  the  bloody,  created  the 
Roman  hierarchy  by  taw,  while  Henry  VIII.  never  did 
anything  of  the  kind  ;  but  merely  continued  the  Church 
as  he  found  it,"  and  "to  suppose  that  Elizabeth  estab- 
lished the  Church  of  England  in  any  sense  other  than 
that  in  which  it  was  the  law  of  the  land  under  the 
Plantagenets  and  the  Papacy,  is  a  very  ignorant  mis- 
take," etc.,  etc.  We  must  remark  that  in  refuting  these 
assertions,  made  with  all  the  recklessness,  effrontery, 
and  disregard  to  historic  truth,  usual  with  certain 
parties,  we  do  little  more  than  condense  and  summarize 


THE   TEST  OF  LEGITIMATE  SUCCESSION. 


29 


the  facts  of  history  touching  this  matter,  admirably 
brought  together  by  the  learned  Cardinal  Wiseman, 
whom,  no  doubt,  these  gentlemen  would  write  down  an 
ignoramus,  who  has  either  never  investigated  the  mat- 
ter, or  is  incompetent  to  form  an  opinion. 

Venerable  Bede  informs  us  that  Pope  Eleutherius  sent 
over  missionaries  to  the  Britons,  and  converted  them. 
And  when  the  Pelagian  heresy  had  infested  the  Island, 
Pope  Celestine  sent  St.  Germanus  to  correct  and 
purify  it.  A  Pope  then,  not  a  king,  commissioned  the 
missionaries  and  bishops  of  the  early  British  Church. 
Again,  that  slaves  might  become  sons,  that  Angli  might 
be  made  Angeli,  Pope  St.  Gregory  sent  Augustine 
from  his  monastery  on  the  Caelian  hill,  who  reconverted 
the  Island  under  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  established  the 
legitimate  succession  of  the  Episcopacy,  which  con- 
tinued until  the  encroachments  and  usurpations  of  spir- 
itual supremacy  by  Henry,  and  his  worthy  daughter 
Elizabeth.  Is  it  with  a  design  to  mislead,  that  we  are 
told  .  "  When  the  Patriarch  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome," 
(though  the  same  writer  says,  it  was  impossible  for 
the  Pope  to  assert  even  a  patriarchal  authority  over 
England)  sent  Augustine  to  convert  the  Saxons,  the 
missionary  found  there  an  existing  British  Church 
dating  from  the  Apostolic  times."  He  might  as  well 
have  added  from  the  Venerable  Bede,  to  whom  he  re- 
fers, that  it  was,  as  we  said  above,  a  Pope  of  Rome 
who  gave  authority,  mission  and  jurisdiction  to  the 
bishops  of  the  British  Church.  Again  we  are  told, 
"  Augustine  was  consecrated  first  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury by  Gallican  bishops." 

Dr.  Newman  even  before  his  conversion  says  in  one 
of  his  essays,  "  Disingenuousness  is  a  characteristic  of 


3<D  COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OF  PE  TER 

heresy."  It  evidently  is  a  marked  feature  of  some  con 
troversialists.  By  the  Pope's  authority,  Augustine,  a 
priest  and  monk,  with  his  monk  companions,  goes  to 
evangelize  the  Saxons ;  by  command  of  the  same 
Pope  Gregory,  Augustine  was  consecrated  a  bishop 
by  Virgilius,  the  primate  of  Aries,  but  Virgilius  had  no 
authority  to  send  him  to  England,  he  could  give  him  no 
jurisdiction  over  that  island.  Virgilius  could  only  do 
what  every  validly  ordained  bishop  can  do  to-day, 
confer  the  episcopal  powers  of  order,  but  not  of  jurisdic- 
tion ;  only  the  Pope  could  assign  a  mission,  impart  jur- 
isdiction or  authority  to  exercise  those  powers,  within  a 
given  territory.  To  Virgilius  himself  the  same  Pope 
had  granted  the  pallium,  the  badge  of  the  archiepis- 
copal  dignity,  giving  him  authority  over  all  the 
bishops  of  Gaul.  "  Because,"  says  St.  Gregory,  "  it  is 
plain  to  all  whence  the  holy  faith  came  forth  in  the 
regions  of  Gaul ;  when  your  Fraternity  asks  afresh  for 
the  ancient  custom  of  the  Apostolic  See,  what  does  it, 
but  as  a  good  child  recur  to  the  bosom  of  its  mother? 
And  so  we  grant  your  Fraternity  to  represent  us, 
in  the  churches  which  are  in  the  kingdom  of  our  most 
excellent  son  Childebert,  according  to  ancient  custom, 
which  has  God  for  its  author."  But  Gregory,  not  Vir- 
gilius, constituted  Augustine  archbishop  of  London, 
sending  him  the  pallium,  authorizing  him  to  consecrate 
twelve  suffragans. 

The  see  was  afterwards  by  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
transferred  from  London  to  Canterbury.  By  the  di- 
rection of  the  Pope,  the  archbishop  of  York  was  to 
be  subject  to  Augustine  during  his  lifetime,  and  after- 
wards the  two  metropolitans  were  to  be  independent, 
and  have  precedence  according  to  seniority  of  conse- 


THE   TEST  OF  LEGITIMATE  SUCCESSION.  31 

cration.  Afterwards  Pope  Honorius  I.  sends  the 
pallium  to  the  two  archbishops  with  special  powers  to 
either,  to  name  the  other's'successor,  "  in  virtue  of  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  See,  in  consideration  of  the  great 
distance  which  separates  England  from  Rome." 

Pope  Adrian  created  the  bishop  of  Lichfield  a  pri- 
mate, subjecting  to  him  many  of  the  suffragans  of 
Canterbury.  Pope  Leo  III.  rescinded  his  predecessor's 
decree,  and  restored  to  Canterbury  its  former  suffra- 
gans. Long  and  heated  were  the  contests  for  super- 
iority, between  Canterbury  and  York,  and  to  the  Pope 
the  rival  claimants  appeal,  to  determine  the  disputed 
prerogatives,  and  their  alternate  triumphs  were  due  to 
decisions  of  the  Pope  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other.  St. 
Bernard  tells  us  in  his  life  of  St.  Malachi,  archbishop 
of  Armagh,  that  he  (St.  Malachi)  undertook  a  journey 
to  Rome  to  obtain  the  pallium  for  himself,  and  for  a 
new  archiepiscopal  see,  the  erection  whereof  he  de- 
sired to  have  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See.  From  all 
this  it  is  plain  that  the  Holy  See  did  from  the  begin- 
ning order  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
transfer,  divide,  and  otherwise  vary  the  jurisdiction  of 
metropolitans.  Among  other  examples  occurring,  after 
Augustine  and  his  immediate  successors  appointed  in 
virtue  of  authority  from  the  Apostolic  See,  Venerable 
Bede  informs  us  that  Wigard  was  sent  to  Rome  by 
Egbert,  king  of  Kent,  and  Oswi  of  Northumbria,  to  be 
consecrated  by  Pope  Vitalianus,  and  the  reason  given 
by  the  two  monarchs  for  wishing  to  have  the  archbishop 
consecrated  at  Rome  was — "Quia  Romana  csset  Catho- 
lica  et  Apostolica  ecclesia."  Because  the  Roman  was  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  Although  the  clergy  com- 
plained and  grew  sometimes  restive  on  account  of  papal 


32 


COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OF  ROME 


provisions,  whereby  the  court  of  Rome  filled  vacant 
benefices  with  strangers  ;  until  the  time  of  Henry  VIII., 
we  never  read  of  any  denial  of  the  Pope's  authority  to 
confirm  archbishops,  or  of  his  jurisdiction  over  them  ; 
he  had  ever  a  legate  in  England  who  took  precedence 
and  passed  judgment  in  their  causes,  and  until  the  time 
of  Henry  VIII.,  the  privileges  and  rights  of  the  Holy 
See  were  never  impugned  or  disputed,  recent  declara- 
tions to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  conclusion  so  pertinent  to  our  argument,  which 
the  eminent  and  learned  Cardinal  Wiseman  logically 
forces  from  the  mouth  of  Anglicans  fond  of  appeal- 
ing to  ancient  canons  and  customs  and  privileges 
of  patriarchal  sees,  is — "That  the  bishops  now  ex- 
isting in  England,  even  supposing  the  validity  of 
their  orders,  were  instituted  and  appointed,  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  not  only  not  consentient,  but  repugnant 
thereto,  and  vehemently  condemning  the  same  as  an 
infringement  of  his  immemorial  rights,  secured  to  him 
by  canons  and  customs  become  ancient,  though  they 
hold  authority  by  law,  have  not,  and  never  have  had, 
since  the  Reformation,  any  ecclesiastical,  hierarchical 
or  Apostolical  succession,  authority  or  jurisdiction  what- 
ever, in  matters  religious  or  spiritual ;  that  they  are 
not  the  inheritors  or  successors  of  those  who  held  the 
sees  until  that  time ;  that,  consequently,  they  are  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Church  Catholic,  intruders,  usurpers  and 
illegitimate  holders  of  the  same."  The  above  will  be 
a  sufficient  answer  to  the  extravagant  assertion,  that 
the  supremacy  of  Henry  was  nothing  novel,  but  based 
on  the  ancient  rights  of  the  crown,  and  that  the  Church 
of  England  was  never  a  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Let 
us  hear  what  the  Church  of  England  herself  has  to  say 


THE   TEST  OF  LEGITIMATE  SUCCESSION. 


33 


on  this  point.  In  the  year  1534,  Parliament,  under 
orders  from  a  despotic  king,  declared  that  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  that  the  king  was  rightfully  her  supreme 
head.  In  the  year  1536  the  Church  of  England,  in  con- 
vocation at  York,  declared  :  "  We  think  the  king's 
highness,  nor  any  temporal  man,  may  not  be  the  head 
of  the  Church  by  the  laws  of  God,  *  *  *  and  we  think 
by  the  law  of  the  Church,  general  councils,  interpreta- 
tions of  approved  doctors,  and  consent  of  Christian 
people,  the  Pope  of  Rome  hath  been  taken  for  the  head 
of  the  Church  and  Vicar  of  Christ,  and  so  ought  to  be 
taken."  Again,  in  the  first  year  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
both  houses  of  convocation,  and  the  two  Universities, 
declared  it  to  be  the  faith  of  the  Church  of  England : 
•'That  the  supreme  power  of  feeding  and  governing 
the  militant  Church  of  Christ  and  confirming  their 
brethren  is  given  to  Peter,  the  Apostle,  and  his  lawful 
successors  in  the  See  Apostolic,  as  unto  the  vicars  of 
Christ." 

Our  readers  may  perhaps  like  to  hear  what  Henry 
himself  says  on  this  subject,  in  his  defence  of  the 
Sacraments  against  Martin  Luther  :  "  Luther  cannot 
deny  but  that  all  the  faithful  Christian  Churches,  at 
this  day,  do  acknowledge  and  reverence  the  holy  See 
of  Rome  as  their  mother  and  primate.  *  *  *  And 
if  this  acknowledgment  is  grounded  neither  on  divine 
nor  human  right,  how  hath  it  taken  so  great  and  gen- 
eral root  ?  how  was  it  admitted  so  universally  by  all 
Christendom?  how  began  it?  how  came  it  to  be  so 
great?  yea,  and  the  Greek  Church  also,  though  the 
empire  was  passed  to  that  part,  we  shall  find  that  she 
acknowledged  the  primacy  of  the  same  Roman  Church. 


34 


COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 


*  *  *  Whereas  Luther  so  impudently  doth  affirm 
that  the  Pope  hath  his  primacy  by  no  right,  neither 
divine  nor  human,  but  only  by  force  and  tyranny,  I  do 
wonder  how  the  mad  fellow  could  hope  to  find  his 
readers  so  simple,  or  blockish  as  to  believe  that  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  being  a  priest,  unarmed,  alone,  with- 
out temporal  force,  or  right,  either  divine  or  human 
(as  he  supposed)  should  be  able  to  get  authority  over 
so  many  bishops  his  equals  throughout  so  many  dif- 
ferent nations.  *  *  *  Or  that  so  many  people,  cities, 
kingdoms,  commonwealths,  provinces  and  nations 
would  be  so  prodigal  of  their  own  liberty,  as  to  sub- 
ject themselves  to  a  foreign  priest  (as  now  so  many 
ages  they  have  done),  or  to  give  him  such  authority 
over  themselves,  if  he  had  no  right  thereunto  at  all." 
Perhaps,  too,  it  might  be  interesting  to  recall  what  Dr. 
Lingard  says  in  regard  to  this  assumption  by  Henry 
of  spiritual  supremacy.  "  Henry  had  now  obtained 
the  great  object  of  his  ambition.  His  supremacy  in 
religious  matters  had  been  established  by  act  of  Par- 
liament. *  *  *  Still  the  extent  of  his  ecclesiastical 
pretensions  remained  subject  to  doubt  and  dissension. 
That  he  intended  to  exclude  the  authority  hitherto 
exercised    by  the  Pontiffs,    was   sufficiently  evident. 

*  *  *  Henry  himself  did  not  clearly  explain,  perhaps 
he  knew  not  how  to  explain,  his  own  sentiments.  If 
on  the  one  hand,  he  was  willing  to  push  his  ecclesias- 
tical prerogative  to  its  utmost  limits,  on  the  other  he 
was  checked  by  the  contrary  tendency  of  those  princi- 
ples, which  he  had  published  and  maintained  in  his 
treatise  against  Luther."  But  he  did  push  this  pre- 
tended prerogative  of  the  crown  to  extreme  limits, 
when    he   made  Cromwell   his  vicar-general,  allowed 


THE    TEST  OF  LEGITIMA  TE  SUCCESSION. 


35 


him  precedence  as  such  before  all  the  lords  spiritual 
and  temporal,  not  only  made  him  sit  in  Parliament 
before  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  but  made  him 
supersede  that  prelate  in  the  presidency  of  the  convo- 
cation. The  degradation  of  the  bishops  was,  however, 
not  yet  deep  enough.  It  was  resolved  to  extort  from 
them  a  practical  acknowledgment  that  they  derived 
no  authority  from  Christ,  but  were  merely  the  occa- 
sional delegates  of  the  crown.  He  suspended  the 
powers  of  all  the  Ordinaries  of  the  realm,  and  by 
making  them  petition  for  the  restoration  of  the  same, 
made  them  acknowledge  the  crown  to  be  the  real  foun- 
tain of  spiritual  jurisdiction.  When  they  submitted 
with  abject  servility,  and  petitioned  for  the  restoration 
of  their  suspended  powers,  a  commission  was  issued  to 
each  bishop  separately,  authorizing  him  during  the 
king's  pleasure,  and  as  the  king's  deputy,  to  ordain, 
etc.  The  same  assumption  and  arbitrary  exercise  of 
the  prerogative  of  the  crown,  and  spiritual  supremacy 
were  continued  under  Edward  and  Elizabeth,  with  this 
difference,  that  under  Henry  the  bishops,  brow-beaten, 
intimidated  and  demoralized,  yielded,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  heroic  bishop  of  Rochester,  and  thus  in 
some  sense  appeared  to  lend  the  sanction  of  the  Church 
to  Henry's  tyrannical  usurpations,  whereas  under  Eliza- 
beth they  atoned  for  their  pusillanimity  and  cowardice, 
redeemed  the  honor  of  the  episcopacy,  and,  with  the 
solitary  exception  of  Kitchen  of  Llandaff,  spurned 
the  oath  of  supremacy,  and  without  even-  one  excep- 
tion they  refused  to  be  made  the  tools  of  the  royal 
popess  by  conferring  a  fraudulent  illegitimate  conse- 
cration on  her  appointees. 

All  this  we  have  detailed  so  lengthiiy  to  show  that 


36  COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

in  the  Church  of  England  (and  the  same  may  be  shown 
of  every  Church  in  Christendom),  from  her  earliest  Es- 
tablishment, and  especially  since  the  introduction  of 
Christianity  among  the  Saxons  by  St.  Augustine,  down 
through  every  age,  even  to  the  time  of  Henry  and 
Elizabeth,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  in  things  spiritual 
was  acknowledged.  The  Pope  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  the  island,  'and  the  bishops,  archbishops  and 
primates,  down  to  Parker's  illegitimate  intrusion  by  the 
civil  power,  held  their  commissions  from  the  Apostolic 
See,  and  thus  were  linked  on  to  the  unbroken  Apostolic 
chain,  the  legitimate  succession  of  their  bishops  thus 
coming  down  from  the  Apostles. 

How  clearly  and  conclusively  is  this  shown  by  Arch- 
bishop Heath  of  York,  in  the  eloquent  and  forcible 
speech,  which  he  delivered  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
against  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  crown  in  the 
year  1559.  His  able  speech  may  be  found  in  full  in 
"Dodd's  Church  History  of  England  ;  Appendix 
35.,"  from  which  we  quote  the  following  extracts  : 

"  By  relinquishing  and  forsaking  the  Church  or  See  of 
Rome,  we  must  forsake  and  fly,  first,  from  all  general 
councils;  secondly,  from  all  canonical  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal laws  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  thirdly,  from  the  judg- 
ment of  all  other  Christian  princes  ;  fourthly,  and  lastly, 
we  must  forsake  and  fly  from  the  holy  unity  of  Christ's 
Church.  *  *  *  First,  touching  the  general  councils,  I 
shall  name  unto  you  these  four:  the  Nicene  Council, 
the  Constantinopolitan  Council,  the  Ephesine,  and  the 
Chalcedon.  *  *  *  At  the  Nicene  Council,  the  first  of 
the  four,  the  bishops  did  write  their  epistle  to  Sylves- 
ter, then  Bishop  of  Rome,  that  their  decrees  then  made, 
might  be  confirmed  by  his  authority.     At  the  council 


THE  TEST  OF  LEG  I  TIM  A  TE  SUCCESSION. 


37 


kept  at  Constantinople,  all  the  bishops  there  were  obe- 
dient to  Damasus,  then  Bishop  of  Rome.  *  *  *  At  the 
Ephesine  Council,  Nestorius,  the  heretic,  was  con- 
demned by  Celestine,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  being 
chief  judge  there.  At  the  Chalcedon  Council,  all  the 
bishops  there  assembled,  did  write  their  humble  sub- 
mission unto  Leo,  then  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  wherein  they 
did  acknowledge  him  there,  to  be  their  chief  head,  six 
hundred  and  thirty  bishops  of  them.  Therefore  to 
deny  the  See  Apostolic  and  its  authority,  were  to  con- 
temn and  set  at  naught,  the  authority  and  decrees  of 
these  noble  councils.  *  *  *  Fourthly,  and  lastly,  we 
must  (by  forsaking  the  See  of  Rome)  forsake  and  fly 
from  the  holy  unity  of  Christ's  Church,  seeing  that  St. 
Cyprian,  that  holy  martyr  and  great  clerk,  doth  say  that 
the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ  doth  depend  upon 
Peter's  authority,  and  his  successor's.  *  *  *  And  by 
this  our  forsaking  and  flying  from  the  unity  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  this  inconveniency,  among  many, 
must  consequently  follow :  that  either  we  must  grant 
the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  the  true  Church  of  God,  or 
else  a  malignant  Church.  If  you  answer  that  it  is  a 
true  Church  of  God,  where  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  taught 
and  his  sacraments  rightly  administered,  how  can  we 
disburthen  ourselves  of  our  forsaking  and  flying  from 
that  Church,  which  we  do  acknowledge  to  be  of  God? 
If  you  answer  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  not  of  God, 
but  a  malignant  Church,  then  it  will  follow  that  we, 
the  inhabitants  of  this  realm,  have  not  as  yet  received 
any  benefit  of  Christ ;  seeing  we  have  received  no 
gospel,  or  other  doctrine,  nor  no  other  sacraments, 
but  what  was  sent  to  us  from  the  Church  of  Rome — 
first,  in  King  Lucius,  his  days,  at  whose  humble  epistle, 


38  COMMUNION  WITH  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

the  holy  martyr  Eleutherius,  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  did 
send  into  this  realm  two  holy  monks,  Fugatius  and 
Damianus,  by  whose  doctrine  and  preaching  we  were 
first  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ,  of  his  holy  gospel  and  his  most  holy  sacraments; 
then,  secondly,  holy  St.  Gregory,  being  Bishop  of  Rome, 
did  send  into  this  realm  two  other  holy  monks,  St. 
Augustine,  called  the  Apostle  of  England,  and  Meletius, 
to  preach  the  self-same  faith  planted  here,  in  this  realm 
in  the  days  of  King  Lucius;  thirdly,  and  last  of  all, 
Paul  III.*being  Bishop  of  Rome,  did  send  hither  the 
Lord  Cardinal  Pole,  his  grace  (by  birth  a  nobleman  of 
this  land),  his  legate  to  restore  us  unto  the  same  faith, 
which  the  martyr,  St.  Eleutherius,  and  St.  Gregory, 
had  planted  here  many  years  before.  If,  therefore,  the 
Church  of  Rome  be  not  of  God,  but  a  false  and  malig- 
nant Church,  then  have  we  been  deceived  all  this  while  ; 
seeing  the  gospel,  the  doctrine,  the  faith  and  the  sacra- 
ments must  be  of  the  same  nature  as  that  Church  is 
from  whence  it  and  they  came." 

This  disposes  of  the  ludicrous  assertion,  made  with 
so  much  apparent  self-complacency  and  assurance,  that : 
"  The  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  consecrated 
at  Aries,  in  France  (597)  and  thus  introduced  the  Eph- 
esine  succession  from  St.  John,  through  Irenaeus  and 
Photinus."  This  assertion  is  moreover  too  childish  for 
any  one  who  pretends  to  know  anything  about  primi- 
tive Christianity.  Must  we  teach  again  the  first  ele- 
ments of  Christian  Doctrine,  the  first  principles  of 
Church  organizatien,  and  government?  must  we  repeat 
the  plain  distinction  between  orders  and  mission  ?  must 
we  go  about  proving  what  has  already  been  acknowl- 
edged,  what  the  Episcopal  Church  teaches  and  acts 


*  Julius  III.,  he  doubtless  meant. 


THE  TEST  OF  LEGITIMA  TE  SUCCESSION. 


39 


upon,  viz. :  that  something  more  than  a  valid  conse- 
cration is  necessary  to  confer  jurisdiction,  a  share  in 
the  commission  and  apostolate  instituted  by  Christ  to 
evangelize  the  nations  and  convert  the  world?  Aries 
could  consecrate,  only  Rome'  could  send  Augustine 
with  Apostolic  authority  to  England,  to  preach  the 
faith  and  transmit  Apostolic  succession  to  the  English 
hierarchy. 


40 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  AND  ANGLICAN 


IV. 

PROTESTANT    EPISCOPAL  AND   ANGLICAN  SUCCESSION 
REPUDIATED. 

WE  cannot,  perhaps,  offer  anything  on  the  subject 
of  the  pretended  legitimacy,  jurisdiction,  and  con- 
sequently Apostolic  succession  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal prelates  of  the  United  States,  more  conclusive  and 
clear  than  the  earnest  words  of  the  lamented  and  estim- 
able Dr.  Ives,  late  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  North  Carolina  :  "  The  real  character  of  the 
Episcopal  authority  and  mission  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  America  must  depend  upon  the 
character  of  the  source  from  which  they  are  derived. 

"  So  that  any  defect  which  the  Mother  Church  of 
England  may  have  inherited  from  the  system  of  Eliza- 
beth, seemed  to  me  clearly  entailed  upon  the  daughter 
in  the  United  States. 

"  Now  then,  I  entreat  my  old  friends  to  allow  me  to 

call  to  their  minds  that  view  of  the  mission  and  iuris- 

>  j 

diction  of  the  English  Church,  as  established  by  Eliza- 
beth, which  destroyed  my  confidence  in  her  claim  to 
my  submission.  I  asked  myself — not  as  a  Catholic, 
not  as  a  controversialist — but  as  one  deeply  anxious  to 
know  the  will  of  God,  and  to  know,  if  possible,  that 
that  will  would  sustain  me  in  my  Protestant  position — 
I  asked  myself,  who  sent  Archbishop  Parker?  '  For 
how  can  he  preach  except  he  be  sent  ?'     Who  put  the 


SUCCESSION  REPUDIATED.  4I 

Gospel  into  his  hand?  told  him  what  it  contained? 
what  was  the  deposition  of  faith  and  sacraments  and 
worship  of  the  '  one,  holy,  Catholic  Church'  com- 
mitted to  him,  and  commissioned  him  to  teach  that 
faith,  dispense  those  sacraments,  and  conduct  that 
worship,  and,  when  death  should  come  to  terminate 
his  Apostolic  work,  to  hand  on  that  '  deposition  to  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles  yet  to  arise  ?  I  made  this 
appeal  to  my  conscience  again  and  again.  '  Who 
thus  sent  the  first  archbishop  of  Elizabeth,  gave  him 
his  mission  to  act  in  this  or  that  way  for  God  ?' 

"  When  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  I  saw  two 
powers  only,  who  even  claimed  the  right  of  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  England,  and  thence  the  right  of  giving 
mission  to  exercise  '  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the  Church 
of  God !'  the  Pope  and  the  queen  !  The  Pope  sus- 
tained in  his  authority  by  the  whole  Church  in  England  ; 
the  queen  sustained  by  her  Parliament  only.  The 
Church,  therefore,  in  England,  could  not  have  com- 
missioned and  sent  this  archbishop.  She  was  utterly 
against  him.  Against  him  in  her  faith,  her  sacraments, 
her  worship,  her  judgment,  her  authority !  she  stood 
forth,  with  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  at  her  head,  pro- 
fessing the  Catholic  faith,  dispensing  the  Catholic 
sacraments,  and  enforcing  the  Catholic  ritual,  and  re- 
quiringall  who  went  out  under  her  authority  to  defend 
this  faith,  guard  these  sacraments,  and  observe  this 
ritual !  The  archbishop  of  Elizabeth  appears,  in  defi- 
ance of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  professedly  bearing 
another  faith,  other  sacraments,  and  commissioned  under 
another  ritual !  Who  sent  him  ?  Whence  derived  he 
the  authority  to  execute  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the 
mystical  body  of  Christ — the  one,  holy,  and  Apostolic 


42  PRO  TESTANT  EPISCOPAL  AND  ANGLICAN 

Church.  Really,  I  could  discern  no  authority  earlier 
than  the  queen  and  Parliament  of  England !  And, 
therefore,  that  my  own  commission  to  act  for  Christ 
had  its  origin  in  man  /" 

Convinced  by  such  conclusive  and  unanswerable 
arguments,  drawn  from  a  profound  and  conscientious 
study  of  the  whole  question  in  all  its  aspects  and 
bearings,  with  the  pages  of  Church  history  lying  open 
before  them,  and  the  doctrine  and  canons  and  usages 
of  the  early  Christian  Church  thoroughly  sifted  and 
scrutinized,  many  of  the  purest,  most  gifted  and 
scholarly  minds  in  the  Anglican  establishment  in  Eng- 
land, and  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America  have  not 
only  doubted  the  Anglican  succession,  but  finding  it 
to  be  a  myth,  have  laid  down  their  lucrative  livings,  to 
enter  the  Catholic  Church  as  simple  laymen,  and  re- 
ceived orders  in  the  Church  from  bishops  possessing 
Apostolic  succession,  or  else,  like  Dr.  Ives,  have  lived 
and  died  in  the  ranks  of  the  laity,  in  the  midst  of  the 
world,  shining  out  as  bright  exemplars  of  heroic 
Christian  virtue.  Such  in  England  are  the  Mannings, 
the  Newmans,  the  Wilberforces,  the  Fabers,  the  Allies, 
and  many  others ;  those  in  our  own  country  we  will 
forbear  to  mention ;  they  are  too  well  known,  men 
whose  massive  intellectual  build,  comprehensive,  culti- 
vated minds,  logical  acumen,  vast  and  varied  learning 
overshadow  and  completely  dwarf,  in  our  opinion,  at 
least,  those  who  have  the  hardihood  to  assert  that  no 
one  competent  to  form  an  opinion,  and  who  has  taken  the 
pains  to  investigate  the  matter,  has  ever  prof  essed  a  doubt 
concerning  the  Anglican  succession,  and  that  it  is  more 
demonstrably  canonical  and  regular  in  all  particulars 
than  any  other  succession  in  Christendom. 


SUCeESSION  REPUDIATED.  43 

No  one  has  doubted  the  Anglican  succession  !  ! 
The  whole  Catholic  Church  doubts  it,  or  rather  posi- 
tively denies  it,  the  Greek  Church  disowns  it,  the  Prot- 
estant world  ridicules  the  pretension,  the  whole  of 
Christendom  outside  the  Anglican  and  American 
Episcopal  Church  denies  and  rejects  the  unwarrantable 
claim.  Yet  outside  of  that  comparatively  small  com- 
munion there  must  be  some  thoughtful  men,  compe- 
tent to  form  an  opinion.  Nay,  on  this  point,  as  well  as 
every  other  fundamental  Christian  tenet,  there  is  divi- 
sion, even  in  the-  little  body  of  the  Anglican  Church 
herself,  and  I  am  sure  I  need  not  reiterate  that  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  many  not 
only  doubt  it,  but  scout  the  very  notion.  An  Angli- 
can bishop,  not  many  years  ago,  preaching  on  a  solemn 
public  occasion  at  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  London,  de- 
nied it  in  strongest  language,  and  the  only  reprimand 
he  received  was,  that  he  was  not  asked  to  print 
his  sermon  !  Where  were  the  Apostolic  witnesses  of 
the  faith?  were  they  all  sleeping  sentinels  on  the 
watch  towers  of  Sion  ?  no  one  to  give  the  alarm  ?  no 
one  to  protest  ?  If  Apostolical  succession  can  be  thus 
publicly  denied  by  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England, 
are  we  not  justified  in  placing  credence  in  what  a 
learned  English  writer,  now  happily  a  Catholic,  author — 
among  other  genial  productions — of  "  My  Clerical 
Friends,"  which  we  would  advise  our  Episcopal  readers 
to  peruse  thoughtfully,  says  :  "  The  mass  of  our  coun- 
try-men have  so  little  esteem  for  the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  priesthood  and  the  Apostolical  succession 
that  they  can  hardly  be  persuaded  to  treat  them  seri- 
ously." The  same  thoughtful  writer,  who  certainly 
hfis  thoroughly  studied  and  dispassionately  investigated 


44 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  AND  ANGLICAN 


the  matter,  though  perhaps  some  would  declare  him 
incompetent  to  form  an  opinion,  again  says :  "  The 
modern  English  assertors  of  Apostolical  succession 
know  that  the  men  who  formed  the  Church  of  England 
and  composed  both  its  ritual  and  its  theology,  detested 
the  very  doctrines  which  they  have  learned  to  approve, 
and  would  have  destroyed  even  that  semblance  of  a 
hierarchy  which  they  have  preserved,  if  the  Tudor 
sovereigns  would  have  suffered  them  to  do  so."  Nay, 
even  Hooker,  so  often  quoted  as  authority,  did  actually 
teach  that,  it  was  quite  possible  to  do-  without  bislwps  ; 
that  there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  a7id  sufficient  rea- 
son to  allow  ordination  made  without  a  bishop,  when,  for- 
sooth, the  exigence  of  necessity  doth  constrain  to  leave  the 
usual  ways  of  the  Church,  or  when  the  Church  must  needs 
have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can  have  a  bishop 
to  ordain.  The  terse  and  well-informed  English  writer 
above  referred  to  says  of  Hooker,  "  No  one  knew  better 
than  he  that  the  first  link  in  the  Anglican  hierarchy 
was  forged,  not  by  an  Apostle  or  Patriarch,  but  by  the 
masculine  hand  of  Elizabeth  Tudor,  and  therefore  too 
prudent  to  expose  the  new  hierarchy  to  a  strain  which 
it  could  not  bear,  he  thought  it  good  policy  to  say, 
'  We  are  not  simply  without  exception  to  urge  a  lineal 
descent  from  the  Apostles  by  continued  succession 
of  bishops  in  every  effectual  ordination.'  In  life  he 
had  denied  the  Apostolical  succession  whenever 
the  '  exigence  of  neccessity'  made  it  superfluous, 
in  death  he  uttered  a  still  more  energetic  protest 
against  it,  without  any  necessity  at  all,  by  sending 
for,  not  an  Anglican  minister,  but  Saravia,  who  had 
never  received  or  pretended  to  receive  Episcopal  or- 
dination."    Not  only  then  Cranmer  and  Barlow,  but 


SUCCESSION  REPUDIATED. 


45 


even  the  favorite  Hooker  ("wise  in  his  generation  and 
rightly  styled  by  posterity,  the  judicious  Hooker") 
thought  lightly  of  Apostolical  succession  in  the  Angli- 
can Church,  which,  nevertheless,  we  are  told  was  never 
doubted  by  any  one  capable  of  forming  an  opinion, 
and  rests  on  the  same  evidence  as  the  Scripture  itself. 
But  the  reason  given  as  an  apology  for  the  low  views  of 
these  Reformers  concerning  the  episcopate  is  too 
amusing:  "  How  could  they  have  known  better  while 
they  were  under  the  Papacy.  Popes  had  taught  them 
that  bishops  were  only  presbyters,  in  order  to  magnify 
themselves  as  the  only  and  universal  bishops."  This 
we  pronounce  a  positive  and  unqualified  falsehood,  but 
granting  that,  "  such  was  the  common  teaching  of 
school  divines  before  the  Reformation,"  how  does  it 
help  the  Anglican's  case  ? 

Anglicans  themselves  admit  that  a  church  in  schism 
forfeits  all  right  to  the  lawful  exercise  of  hierarchical 
powers  or  jurisdiction  ;  that  bishops  of  a  schismatical 
communion  could  not  lawfully,  though"  they  might 
validly,  exercise  ecclesiastical  functions ;  could  net  be 
admitted  to  a  voice  in  a  general  council,  or  communi- 
cate with  other  bishops,  until  they  retract  their  errors 
or  schismatical  principles,  and  then  when  returning  to 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  they  should  be  formally  rec- 
ognized by  ecclesiastical  authority  and  reinstated  in 
their  sees,  or  removed  to  others,  or  else  remain  sus- 
pended. Anglicans  themselves  admit  that  Apostolical 
succession  cannot  exist  outside  the  true  Church  of  God, 
and  St.  Augustine  most  positively  declares  that  even 
those  who  maintained  the  integrity  of  faith,  but  fell 
from  unity,  were  outside  the  pale  of  the  Church. 
"You  are  with  us,"  he  says,  "in  baptism,  in  the  creed, 


46  PRO  TEST  ANT  EPISCOPAL  AND  ANGLICAN 

in  the  other  sacraments  of  the  Lord,  but  in  the  spirit 
of  unity,  in  the  bond  of  peace — in  fine  in  the  Catholic 
Church  itself — you  are  not  with  us."  But  like  the 
Donatists  and  early  heretics,  Anglicans  and  Episcopa- 
lians justify  their  separation  from  the  Church,  their 
breach  of  unity,  by  urging  the  corruptions  of  the 
Church,  the  usurpations  of  the  papacy.  "  England  in 
rejecting  a  usurping  papacy  fell  back  on. her  ancient 
Catholic  rights,  and  began  to  renew  and  to  regain,  as 
her  old  law,  all  her  primitive  relations  with  all  the 
Apostolic  Sees."  But  they  forget  that  one  of  the  pleas 
for  setting  up  a  new  establishment  was  that  "  all  the 
Apostolic  Sees  had  erred  in  faith."  "  England,"  we  are 
told,  "  is  not  in  communion  with  Pius  IX.,  for  his  new 
dogma  rends  him  from  communion  with  all  his  own 
predecessors  and  with  all  antiquity."  But  at  her  very 
setting  out  in  life,  the  Church  of  England  had  solemnly 
declared  that  for  upwards  of  eight  hundred  years  the 
whole  Church  was  sunk  in  damnable  idolatry. 

We  may  paraphrase  the  answer  given  to  a  similar 
charge  of  the  Donatists  by  the  early  doctors,  thus: 
"  Either  the  Church  was  so  corrupted  as  to  be  no 
longer  the  Church  of  Christ,  or  it  was  not;  if  it  was, 
then  the  promises  of  Christ  had  failed,  and  His  Church 
had  ceased,  the  gates  of  hell  had  prevailed,  He  was  no 
longer  with  His  Church,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  no  longer  dwelt  with  her ;  there  is  then  no  suc- 
cession, no  historical  transmission  of  powers  from  the 
Apostles.  But  if  the  Church  was  still  the  Church  of 
'Christ,  if  Christ's  promises  did  not  fail,  and  if  His 
plighted  word  was  made  good,  that  He  should  be  with 
those  whom  He  sent  to  the  end  of  ages,  then  those 
who  went  out  from  her  on  pretence  that  she  had  erred 


SUCCESSION  REPUDIA  TED. 


47 


and  had  become  corrupt,  and  that  the  corruptions  of 
the  Church  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  remain 
in  communion  with  her,  simply  condemn  themselves, 
and  render  their  claim  to  succession  from  the  Apostles 
preposterous  in  the  extreme.  If  their  charge  of  apos- 
tacy  and  idolatry  be  true,  how  are  they  going  to  make 
connection  with  the  pure  primitive  Church?  how  over- 
leap that  fearful  chasm  of  upwards  of  eight  hundred 
years  of  abominable  corruptions,  idolatry,  heresy  and 
crime?  how  stretch  the  chain  of  succession  across  that 
foul  and  reeking  abyss  ?  Why  Pius  IX.  has  by  one  new 
error  "  rent  his  communion  with  all  antiquity,  and 
Bishop  Ryan,  by  the  errors  of  his  Church  since  the 
Vatican  Council,  or  even  since  the  Council  of  Trent,  has 
lost  all  right  to  the  name  of  Catholic,  all  claim  to 
Apostolical  succession,"  how  then  could  the  Anglican 
Church,  after  eight  hundred  years  of  such  dreadful 
crimes  and  errors  in  even  every  Apostolic  See,  have 
been  able  to  recover  and  transmit  legitimate  descent 
down  to  the  reformers  ? 

This,  says  a  spicy  English  writer,  is  "as  if  a  man 
should  contend  proudly  for  a  pedigree  derived  through 
countless  generations  of  felons.  What !  call  the  whole 
Catholic  priesthood  the  spawn  of  Antichrist,  and  then 
attempt  to  prove  that  your  orders  are  manifestly 
divine  because  you  can  trace  them  to  that  source  ; 
revile  the  whole  Catholic  Church  as  '  the  harlot  of 
Babylon,'  as  twenty  generations  of  Anglican  bishops  and 
clergy  did,  and  then  claim  her  as  your  mother ;  sepa- 
rate from  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  ground  that  she 
was  '  Antichristian,'  and  claim  to  be  the  legitimate  des- 
cendants of  Antichrist  ?" 

But  if  the  Church  did  not  thus  err,  apostatize,  adul- 


48  ANGLICAN  SUCCESSION  REP  UDJA  TED. 

terate  the  pure  truths  of  Christianity,  and  become  anti- 
christian,  which  most  certainly  she  did  not,  for  to  as- 
sert that  she  did,  in  the  face  of  Christ's  own  plighted 
word,  "  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against 
her,"  "that  He  himself  would  be  with  her  all  days," 
"  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  abide  with  her  forever, 
and  teach  her  all  truth,"  is  blasphemous  impiety ;  then 
the  Reformers  broke  off  from  the  Church  of  Christ, 
severed  the  bonds  of  unity,  and  as  schismatics  and 
heretics  the  reformed  bishops  never  had,  as  we  said 
before,  with  Cardinal  Wiseman,  "any  ecclesiastical, 
hierarchical  or  Apostolical  succession,  authority,  or 
jurisdiction  whatever,  and  are  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Church  illegitimate  intruders  and  usurpers." 


WAS  MATTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRATED?        49 


V. 

WAS   MATTHEW   PARKER  CONSECRATED? 

IF  Parker  was  not  validly  consecrated,  the  chain  of 
Apostolical  succession  in  the  Anglican  Church,  and, 
in  consequence,  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  America,  is 
broken,  the  very  first  link  is  wanting,  for  as  Water- 
worth  remarks,  "  The  episcopal  sees,  and,  eventually, 
the  cures  throughout  England,  were  supplied  by  men 
ordained  and  consecrated  by  Parker,  and  if  Parker 
were  not  a  consecrated  bishop,  then  neither  were  the 
Anglican  clergy  and  prelacy  episcopally  ordained  nor 
consecrated."  To  realize  more  fully  how  the  whole 
episcopate  of  the  Anglican  Church  hangs  on  the  valid- 
ity of  Parker's  consecration,  and  how  true  it  is  that  he 
is  the  connecting  link  between  the  old  and  new  hier- 
archy of  England,  we  must  remember  that  at  the  time 
of  Parker's  real  or  supposed  consecration,  December 
17th,  1559,  there  was  but  one  lawful  titular  bishop 
throughout  the  realm ;  every  see  but  one,  that  of 
Llandaff,  was  vacant.  Dr.  Heylin,  a  Protestant  histor- 
ian, informs  us  that  there  were  no  more  than  fifteen 
living  of  that  sacred  order,  and  that  they  all,  but  Kitchen 
of  Llandaff,  whom  another  Protestant  historian  calls  the 
calamity  of  his  see,  refused  the  oath  of  supremacy,  and 
were  in  consequence  deprived  of  their  sees.  There  were 
twenty-six  sees  within  the  realm ;  two  of  them  were 
archbishoprics.     Of  these,  one   archbishopric,   that  of 


5Q 


WAS  MA  T THE  IV  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED? 


Canterbury,  and  nine  episcopal  sees  were  vacant  by 
death  ;  the  other  archbishop  and  bishops,  Dr.  Heylin 
says,  "  being  called  in  the  beginning  of  July,  1559,  by 
certain  of  the  lords  of  the  council  commissionated 
thereunto  in  due  form  of  law,  were  then  and  there  re- 
quired to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy  according  to  the 
law  made  in  that  behalf.  Kitchen  of  Llandaff  alone 
takes  it.  *  *  *  By  all  the  rest  it  was  refused." 
After  giving  the  names  of  every  Catholic  prelate  in 
the  realm  who  refused,  they  were  not,  he  says,  all  de- 
prived until  the  end  of  September.  ''  But  now,"  he 
continues,  "  they  had  hardened  one  another  to  a  reso- 
lution of  standing  out  unto  the  last,  and  were  there- 
upon deprived  of  their  several  bishoprics,  as  the  law 
required.  A  punishment  which  came  not  on  them  all 
at  once,  some  of  them  being  borne  withal  (in  hope  of 
their  conformity  and  submission)  till  the  end  of  Sep- 
tember." "  The  civil  power,"  says  Waterworth,  "  armed 
with  the  oath  of  supremacy,  had  destroyed  the  hierarchy 
of  the  Church.  The  Parliament  had  thrown  down,  but 
how  was  it  to  build  up  ?  Was  the  queen  or  the  gov- 
ernment to  use  the  same  authority  which  had  un- 
bishoped  the  Church,  to  create  a  hierarchy." 

This  scrap  of  English  history  lets  in  a  world  of  light 
on  the  cradle  of  the  Anglican  establishment,  and  shows 
that  its  legal  title,  "  the  Church  of  England  by  law  and 
Parliament  established,"  belies  the  claim  to  Apostolical 
crigin,  stamps  it  as  a  royal  foundation,  and  shows,  more- 
over, how  ridiculous  and  absurd  the  pretence,  that  at 
the  Reformation  a  return  was  made  to  ancient  rules, 
and  that  the  Church  of  England  only  fell  back  on  her 
ancient  rights.  "  Let  those  who  pretend  such  rever- 
ence for  ancient  canons  show," — as  Cardinal  Wiseman 


W A  S  MA  T  THE  W .  PA  RKER  CON  SB  CRA  TED  ? 


5'I 


replies  to  the  assertion,  that :  "  On  the  accession  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  the  true  successors  of  the  Apostles 
in  the  English  Church  were  reinstated  in  their  rights," 
"  the  canons  whereby  the  deprivation  of  bishops,  and 
the  appointment  of  new  ones  by  letters  missive,  are 
granted  to  the  civil  rulers.  If  they  allow  the  authority 
of  Elizabeth  to  act  as  she  did,  then  let  them  be  con- 
sistent and  admit  that  of  Mary  to  act  similarly ;  and 
moreover,  let  them  give  us  their  warrant  lor  such 
authority,  in  the  ancient  Church  to  which  they  appeal. 
If  they  consider  it  to  have  been  usurpation  in  Eliza- 
beth, '  of  the  iron  hand  and  of  the  iron  maw,'  as  some 
of  them  have  called  her,  then  is  their  entire  hierarchy 
based  upon  an  unjustifiable  and  tyrannical  act  of  power, 
and  they  who  compose  it  are  intruders."  Who  deposed, 
the  same  learned  cardinal  asks,  these  sixteen  bishops, 
that  then  formed  the  hierarchy  of  the  English  Church? 
who  reinstated  the  others?  and  who  were  reinstated? 
We  will  await  reply  to  these  queries,  and  in  the  mean- 
time, we  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  that  impartial 
secular  authority  who  thinks  "that  there  is  a  perfect 
legal  and  historical  identity,  so  to  speak,  of  person, 
between  the  Church  of  England  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  the  Church  of  England  after  the  Reforma- 
tion," to  the  historical  fact  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
month  of  December,  1559,  the  Church  of  England  had 
but  one  lawful,  canonically  instituted  bishop,  and  he 
died  in  1563,  without  attempting  to  canonically  fill  the 
vacant  sees  or  provide  for  the  transmission  of  the 
episcopal  order,  or  the  legitimate  succession  of  any  cor- 
porate witness  to  the  identity  of  the  faith  and  Church 
of  England,  nay,  absolutely  refusing  to  lend  himself  to 
every  attempt  to  keep  up  such  identity  and  transmit 


52  'VAS  3tA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  ? 

such  episcopal  succession.  "The  supremacy  of  the 
Pope  had  been  rejected ;  in  the  queen  had  been  in- 
vested the  supreme  government  of  the  Church."  We 
quote  again  Rev.  Mr.  Wat.er\vorth  :  "  Every  bond  be- 
tween the  crown  and  the  hierarchy  had  been  broken. 
England  is  without  a  hierarchy,  and  even  if  the  chain 
of  episcopal  succession  could  be  preserved  unbroken, 
what  hand  could  unite  the  severed  link  of  episcopal 
jurisdiction  ?  But  something  must  be  done  ;  it  was  an 
emergency  in  which  ordinary  difficulties,  if  they  could 
not  be  removed,  must  be  beaten  down  or  passed  over; 
and  though  the  more  observing  and  learned  might 
note  the  flaw  in  the  episcopal  blazonry,  the  glitter  of 
that  dignity,  and  the  actual  possession  of  sees,-  to 
which  authority  had  for  centuries  been  attached,  would 
no  doubt  conceal  the  defect  from  the  eyes  of  the  mul- 
titude." 

Parker  was  elected  to  fill  the  vacant  see  of  Canter- 
bury, August  ist,  1559,  t>ut  wh°  was  to  consecrate 
him  ?  The  bishops  of  the  realm  were  obstinate.  They 
were  not  to  be  brow-beaten  or  intimidated  ;  the  oath 
of  supremacy  had  been  tendered  and  refused,  the  Eng- 
lish episcopate  had  retrieved  its  honor,  redeemed  it- 
self from  the  degrading  cowardice  and  mean  servility 
shown  in  Henry's  reign  ;  many  had  already  been  de- 
posed, and  cent  to  the  Fleet.  Some,  as  Heylin  notes. 
"  were  borne  withal  in  hope  of  their  conformity  and 
submission  until  the  end  of  September."  It  was  all 
important  to  the  Reformers  to  have  Parker  consecrated 
by  some  Catholic  prelates  in  order  to  maintain  a  sem- 
blance at  least  of  episcopal  succession  and  identity 
with  the  old  Church.  The  severity  exercised  towards 
some  would,  it  was  hoped,  have  its   influence   on  the 


WAS  MA  TTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED: 


53 


others,  and  make  them  more  pliant  and  submissive  to 
the  queen's  commands.  A  commission  was  con- 
sequently issued  on  the  9th  of  September  to  Tonstall 
of  Durham,  Bourne  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Pole  of  Peter- 
borough, and  Kitchen  of  Llandaff,  and  to  these  were 
joined  Barlow  and  Scorey,  returned  refugees,  legally  de- 
prived under  the  previous  reign,  who  not  being  then 
elected  to  any  see  were  simply  styled  bishops.  This 
commission  failed ;  doubtless  because  the  Catholic 
bishops  refused  to  become participes  criminis  by  assis- 
ting to  consecrate  Parker.  Mackintosh,  in  his  "  His- 
tory of  England,"  says  :  "  These  prelates,  who  must 
have  considered  such  an  act  a  profanation,  conscien- 
tiously refused."  Canon  Estcourt  remarks,  "It  is  dif- 
ficult now  to  understand  how  any  one  could  expect 
that  a  commission  would  be  executed  which  bore  so 
gross  an  insult  on  the  face  of  it.  Not  merely  to  require 
them  to  consecrate  a  married  priest,  notoriously  sus- 
pected of  heresy,  but  to  join  with  them  two  suspended 
excommunicated  ecclesiastics,  calling  themselves 
bishops,  relapsed  heretics,  and  apostate  religious,  was 
sufficient  of  itself  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the 
mandate."  Shortly  after,  and  most  probably  in  con- 
sequence or  in  punishment  of  this  refusal,  Tonstall, 
Bourne  and  Pole  were  deprived,  leaving,  as  we  before 
mentioned,  only  one  see  in  the  whole  realm,  with  a 
legitimate  incumbent,  one  legal  titular  bishop  in  the 
whole  English  Church,  Kitchen  of  Llandaff,  and  he, 
presumably,  because,  it  was  hoped,  as  he  had  owned 
the  queen's  supremacy,  he  would  yet  yield  obedience 
to  her  commands  and  consecrate  her  newly  appointed 
archbishop.  This  brief  chapter  in  the  history  of  the 
Anglican  establishment  we  deem  important,  as  showing 


54         WA  S  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  ? 

the  straits  to  which  the  queen  and  Parliament  were 
reduced  to  secure  a  legitimate  episcopate  in  the 
nascent  royal  establishment,  and  how  long  and  pain- 
fully Elizabeth  and  her  ministers  travailed  in  giving 
birth  to  the  new  hierarchy.  It  may  also  help  us  to 
understand  the  importance  attached  to  question  of 
fact,  and  the  legitimacy  and  validity  of  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  first  of  the  new-born  Church,  the  first  link 
in  a  new  line  of  prelates,  the  parent  stock  to  which  the 
clergy  of  the  Anglican  and  Episcopal  Churches  must 
trace  their  pedigree,  and  from  which  alone  they  can 
prove  their  legitimacy,  their  mission,  or  orders.  One 
attempt  to  get  a  lawful  bishop  for  the  Reformed 
Church,  to  weld  on  to  the  old,  venerable  chain  of 
Apostolical  succession,  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  this 
new  link  forged  by  the  masculine  hand  of  a  Tudor 
queen,  to  engraft  this  suckling  scion  of  royalty  on 
the  original  Catholic  stock,  from  which  alone  it  cbuld 
draw  sap,  vitality,  fecundity,  failed,  proved  an  utter 
abortion.  Whether  the  next  attempt  succeeded  better 
we  will  examine  presently. 

We  come  now  to  the  facts  regarding  Parker's  con- 
secration and  the  validity  of  the  act,  but  we  wish  it 
distinctly  understood  that  this  is  a  secondary  question, 
as  far  as  the  Catholic  Church  and  her  doctrine  are  con- 
cerned, for  on  the  principles  on  which  the  primitive 
Church  has  always  acted,  and  which  are  so  clearly  and 
distinctly  enunciated  by  her  in  the  early  and  Apostolic 
ages,  and  which  are  in  fact  recognized  by  Anglicans 
and  acted  on  by  all  religious  denominations,  the  An- 
glican Church,  and  therefore  the  Episcopal  Church  of 
America,  have,  and  can  have,  no  connecting  link  with 
the  Apostolic  Church,  no  Apostolic  succession.     This 


WAS  MATTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRATED? 


55 


being  the  case,  we  need  go  no  further,  to  disprove  the 
claim  of  Anglican  succession.  But  we  are  willing  to 
go  further,  and  absolutely  deny  the  validity  of  Parker's 
consecration,  and  thus  "  strike  at  the  very  root  of  all 
pretensions  in  the  Anglican  and  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America  to  Apostolical  succession."  Pre- 
mising again,  what  we  have  already  said,  that  the  val- 
idity of  consecration  and  the  Apostolical  succession  of 
the  Anglican  bishops  are  quite  different  questions,  we 
will  now  carefully  and  dispassionately  examine  and  dis- 
cuss the  vexed  question  of  the  validity  of  Parker's  con- 
secration, a  question  of  vital  importance  to  Anglican 
orders,  a  question  of  life  or  death  to  the  Episcopate 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America.  For 
though  Catholics  may  refute  and  disprove  Anglican  and 
Episcopalian  pretensions  to  Apostolical  succession, 
even  conceding  valid  consecration  of  their  bishops,  the 
case  of  the  latter  is  hopeless,  their  position  untenable, 
unless  they  can  prove  to  a  demonstration,  and  show  be- 
yond the  shadow  of  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  first 
Anglican  bishops  under  Elizabeth  were  actually  and 
validly  consecrated. 

All  the  Catholic  bishops,  as  we  have  seen,  refused 
to  participate  in  the  sacrilege,  refused  to  lay  hands  on 
the  would-be  prelate ;  and  now  in  the  whole  realm 
there  is  but  one  bishop  with  jurisdiction,  but  one 
bishop  holding  a  see,  and  him,  Camden  styles  the 
calamity  of  his  see.  Surely,  then,  the  succession  is  in 
imminent  peril ;  'tis  a  critical  juncture  for  the  royal 
establishment  of  the  English  Church.  How  was  the 
crisis  got  over?  We  are  naturally  a  little  curious  on 
this  subject,  and  we  can  well  imagine  the  state  of 
suspense  and  anxiety  of  those  whose  whole  religious 


56 


WAS  MA  TTIIE  IV  PARKER  CuNSECRA  'JED. 


system,  orders,  mission,  prelacy  and  priesthood  hang 
in  the  balance,  depend  on  the  satisfactory  solution  of 
the  question,  Was  Parker  validly  consecrated?  For 
Anglicanism  and  Episcopalianism  the  issue  is  life  or 
death.  Our  strenuous  advocate  of  Anglican  succession 
concedes  as  much,  for  although  he  demurs  somewhat 
to  the  assertion  that  if  Parker  was  not  consecrated,  and 
validly  consecrated,  the  Anglican  succession  fails,  yet  he 
is  willing  to  let  it  be  assumed,  "  for  if  Parker  was  not 
duly  consecrated,  it  is  certain  no  bishop  in  Christendom 
can  prove  his  orders."  This  is  a  strange  proposition. 
What  does  it  mean  ?  surely  all  the  bishops  in  Christen- 
dom do  not  derive  their  orders  from  Parker.  All  the 
Anglican  and  Protestant  Episcopal  prelates  do,  and  it 
may  most  truly  be  said,  that  if  Parker  was  not  duly 
consecrated,  it  is  certain  no  bishop  in  the  Anglican 
Church  or  Episcopal  Church  can  prove  his  orders,  or 
rather,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  bishop  in  these 
denominations.  This  we  assert,  notwithstanding  the 
puerile  claim  made  by  some  Anglican  writers,  that  the 
apostate  De  Dominis,  or  a  pretended  Irish  archbishop 
assisting  at  a  consecration  of  some  Anglican  bishop  in 
the  17th  century  would  suffice  to  restore  the  broken 
line  of  succession  in  the  Anglican  Church.  Can  they 
really  be  serious  in  making  such  assertions,  or  is  it  not 
trifling  with  the  intelligence  and  conscience  of  those 
who  look  up  to  them  for  instruction  in  Christian  faith 
and  church  organism  ? 

Does  it  not  Seem  puerile  trifling  to  assert  that  "the 
Pope  sent  Archbishop  Bedini  to  America  to  remedy 
the  first  defective  succession?"  and  again,  "  the  succes- 
sion communicated  to  us,  in  two  instances,  by  De 
Dominis,  archbishop  of  Spolato  in  Delmatia,    in  the 


WAS  MA  TTHI:  \V  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED? 


57 


seventeenth  century,  transmits  of  itself,  a  better  and 
more  valid  succession  than  the  Nuncio  Bedini  conferred 
on  Dr.  Bayley,  the  present  Roman  Catholic  metro- 
politan." To  Catholics  this  is  simply  ludicrous.  In  the 
year  1S53,  three  new  sees  were  regularly  and  canonically 
erected  in  the  province  of  New  York,  viz. :  Newark,  N.  J., 
Burlington,  Vt.,  and  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  and  Bishops 
Bayley,  De  Goesbriandand  Loughlin  were  regularly  and 
canonically  appointed  by  the  Holy  See  to  fill  the  same. 
The  usual  rescript  for  the  consecration,  empowering  any 
duly  consecrated  bishop  in  communion  with  the  Holy 
See  to  consecrate  them,  was  forwarded  to  the  metropoli- 
tan, Archbishop  Hughes,  of  New  York.  Availing  him- 
self of  the  presence  of  the  illustrious  Archbishop  Bedini, 
who  happened  to  be  in  New  York,  having  come  to  this 
country  on  a  special  mission  having  absolutely  no 
reference  to  the  consecration  of  bishops  or  the  intro- 
ducing of  a  new  succession,  Archbishop  Hughes  re- 
quested him  to  officiate  at  the  consecration  of  the  new 
bishops,  much  in  the  same  way  as  Dr.  Brownell  had 
commissioned  Dr.  De  Lancey  to  act  for  him  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Coxe's  promotion  to  the  see  of  Western  New 
York.  Yet  this,  we  are  gravely  told,  was  all  designed 
by  the  Pope  to  introduce  a  new  succession,  and  remedy  a 
defective  one.  when  every  one  knows  that  the  Pope  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,  and  presumably  knew 
nothing  of  the  nuncio  officiating  and  consecrating 
until  after  the  consecration  had  actually  taken  place. 
And  so  little  idea  had  the  American  hierarchy  of 
any  need  of  an  amended  succession  to  be  derived  from 
this  illustrious  prelate  that  although  since  the  year 
1853,  many  new  bishops  have  been  consecrated  in  the 
United  States,  and  among  them  the  present  bishop  of 


53 


W AS  MA  TTHE  IV  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED? 


Buffalo,  until  very  recently  not  one  of  the  bishops  con- 
secrated by  Mons.  Bedini  was  called  upon  to  transmit 
the  new  succession.  In  the  year  1873,  indeed  Archbishop 
Bayley,  as  metropolitan  of  the  see  of  Baltimore,  to  which 
he- had  been  transferred  from  Newark  in  1872,  did  con- 
secrate Bishop  Gross  of  Savannah,  so  that  we  must  con- 
gratulate our  esteemed  friend  and  brother  of  Savannah 
that  he  has  at  length  resurrected  the  amended  succes- 
sion, after  it  had  lain  dead  or  dormant  for  nearly  twenty 
years. 

Yet  with  characteristic  hardihood  we  are  referred  to 
the  Civilta  Catolica  as  authority  for  this  absurd  and 
puerile  statement.  The  Civilta  Catolica,  an  able  and 
generally  very  correct  periodical,  edited  by  Jesuits, 
naturally  took  notice  of  the  very  solemn  ceremony 
which  took  place  in  the  Cathedral  of  New  York,  but 
that  it  gives  any  ground  for  these  inferences  and 
absurd  assertions  that  the  first  consecration  was  so  de- 
fective that  the  Pope  tried  to  mend  it  by  a  second  succes- 
sion, or  that  by  the  second  or  Bedini  consecration  a  second 
Roman  Catholic  succession  started  in  New  York,  we 
absolutely  deny.  But  when  a  church  dignitary  out- 
rages common  decency  by  echoing  the  gross  calumnies 
of  infidel  revolutionists,  and  maligns  the  character  of 
one  of  the  most  amiable,  gentle  and  gentlemanly 
of  men,  an  illustrious  and  estimable  prelate,  now  gone 
to  his  reward,  by  calling  him  a  butcher  and  virtual 
murderer,  and  when  those  publicly  and  triumphantly  re- 
futed charges  and  lying  assertions  against  the  character, 
forsooth,  from  which  the  second  Roman  Catholic  succes- 
sion started  in  Nczv  York,  are  rehashed  and  served  up 
manifestly  for  the  purpose  of  damaging  and  vilifying 
the  Catholic  episcopate,  may  we  not  retort  in  his  own 


WAS  MATTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRATED'         -g 

language,  and  ask,  where  is  the  morality  of  throwing  out 
such  monstrous,  not  blunders,  but  downright  falsehoods, 
in  assaulting  the  spiritual  character  of  others  ? 

But  to  return.  Was  Matthew  Parker,  then,  ever 
validly  consecrated  ?  What  was  the  issue  of  subsequent 
attempts  after  the  first   failure? 

This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  all-important  question 
for  our  Anglican  friends.  On  its  solution  hangs  the 
fate  of  the  whole  Anglican  system,  for  on  Parker's 
valid  consecration  depends  the  validity  of  orders  in 
the  Anglican  Church ;  and  without  valid  orders  there 
can  be  no  shadow  of  a  claim  to  Apostolical  succession, 
or  legitimate  descent  from  the  Apostles,  or  corporate 
identity  with  the  primitive  Church  of  Christ.  Please 
to  remember,  dear  readers,  what  we  have  already  de- 
monstrated, that  this  question,  so  vital  to  Anglicanism 
and  Episcopalianism  and  to  all  their  vaunted  claims, 
is  of  little  consequence  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
in  no  wise  affects  the  Catholic  argument  against 
the  pretensions  and  claims  made  by  them  to  Apos- 
tolical succession,  or  identity  with  the  Church  of  the 
Apostles.  We  discuss  this  question,  then,  not  through 
any  necessity  to  make  good  our  argument,  or  to  refute 
their  claims,  but  to  meet  them  in  their  last  trench, 
and  entirely  cut  the  ground  from  beneath  their  feet ; 
to  take  away  the  last  shadow  of  a  claim  to  Apos- 
tolicity.  To  prove  this,  without  going  over  the  whole 
ground  again,  to  show  that,  even  with  valid  orders, 
they  have  no  mission,  no  legitimate  authority  to  teach, 
because  they  themselves  are  not  sent,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  remember  that  there  was  in  the  whole  realm 
of  England  only  one  legitimate  bishop,  occupying  a 
see,  exercising  a  jurisdiction,  and  he  refused  to  par- 


60         WAS  MA  T THE  IV  PA RKER  COA'SE CRA  TED  t 

ticipate  in  the  ceremony  of  Parker's  consecration. 
Not  one  of  those  who  are  said  to  have  consecrated 
him,  and  who  are  named  in  the  Lambeth  Register,  had 
any  jurisdiction.  Barlow,  Scorey,  Coverdale,  and 
Hodgkins  are  designated  without  any  title,  even  in  the 
register,  and  such,  of  them  as  were  afterwards  con- 
firmed and  appointed  to  sees,  were  so  confirmed 
by  Parker  himself,  showing  that  they  had  no  juris- 
diction until  after  Parker's  consecration,  and  could 
give  none,  nemo  dat  quod  non  habct.  But  how  could 
Parker  give  to  them,  or  any  others,  what  no  one  gave 
to  him  ?  What  a  miserable  subterfuge,  then,  it  is.  to 
trace  through  Bauchier,  Neville,  and  Chicheley,  suc- 
cession to  a  Roman  Pontiff,  when  nobody  denies  that 
the  Church  of  England  had  valid  orders  and  legiti- 
mate succession,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 
In  the  see  of  Canterbury  from  Augustine,  sent,  con- 
firmed and  commissioned  by  Gregory,  down  to  Cardi- 
nal Pole,  sent,  commissioned  and  legitimately  appointed 
to  that  venerable  archiepiscopal  see,  by  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff,  Julius  III.,  there  was  a  continuous  line,  an  un- 
broken succession  of  corporate  witnesses,  succesors  of 
the  Apostles.  The  whole  difficulty,  then,  is  in  Parker's 
succession.  How  has  he  been  linked  on  to  the  chain 
coming  down  from  the  Apostles?  No  Catholic  bishop 
would  consecrate  him,  no  bishop  exercising,  or  pos- 
sessing authority,  mission,  jurisdiction,  or  a  see,  would 
lay  hands  on  him ;  there  is  not  only  no  concurrence 
of  the  sovereign  Pontiff,  of  the  Patriarch,  which  con- 
currence the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nice  make 
essential  to  a  canonical  consecration  ;  there  is  not  only 
no  confirmation  of  a  metropolitan,  or  approbation  of 
the  bishops  of  the  province,  nay,  the  pretended  conse- 


WAS  MAT  THE  W  PA  RKER  CONSE  CRA  TED  ?        6 1 

cration  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Sovereign  Pontiff 
and  every  legitimate  bishop  in  the  realm  ;  so  that  the  at- 
tempt to  preserve  Episcopal  succession  violates  every 
precedent,  and  every  canonical  regulation  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  as  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  whose 
valuable  lectures  we  have  freely  used  and  made  our 
own,  says,  the  new  bishops  of  the  Anglican  establish- 
ment separated  themselves,  not  only  in  faith,  from  the 
eoiscopacy  of  Christendom,  -but  broke  through  those 
ordinances  which  their  predecessors  had  for  centuries 
regarded  as  Apostolical,  authoritative  and  binding. 
This,  moreover,  shows  how  consistent  they  are  in 
their  appeals  to  the  canons  and  the  ancient  councils, 
when  in  order  to  get  an  archbishop,  or  the  first  link  in 
the  new  episcopal  chain,  they  had  to  violate  all  ec- 
clesiastical law,  run  counter  to  Apostolical  precedents, 
and  cast  to  the  winds  the  canons  of  Nice.  Yet,  though 
they  have  hopelessly  lost  Apostolical  succession,  they 
have  valid  orders,  if  Parker  was  validly  consecrated. 

Before  this  can  be  positively,  and  with  certainty 
asserted,  it  must  be  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt  or  cavil,  (i),  that  the  consecration  of  Lambeth 
chapel  actually  took  place,  and  as  the  chief  proof  of  this 
is  the  Lambeth  register,  its  authenticity,  or  genuineness 
must  be  demonstrated;  (2),  that  Barlow  was  himself 
consecrated  ;  and  (3),  that  he  used  a  valid  form  in 
Parker's  consecration.  The  learned  Dr.  Kenrick,  in  his 
exhaustive  treatise  on  Anglican  ordinations,  to  which 
we  have  before  referred,  and  from  which  we  have 
freely  borrowed,  states  the  whole  question  so  intelli- 
gently and  clearly,  that  we  make  no  apology  for  the 
length  of  the  following  quotation  : 

"  Matthew  Parker  was  chosen  to  be  the  first  Protes- 


62    WAS  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  f 

tant  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  he  was  consecrated  by  any  of  the  Catholic  bishops. 
According  to  the  advocates  of  Anglican  orders,  he 
received  episcopal  consecration  from  Barlow,  who  had 
been  made  bishop  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  who,  on  this 
occasion,  is  said  to  have  used  the  form  of  ordination 
known  as  King  Edward's  form,  in  whose  reign  it  had 
been  introduced. 

"  With  regard  to  this  important  fact,  there  are  three 
questions — all  of  which  must  be  satisfactorily  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  before  those  who  trace  their  orders 
to  Matthew  Parker  can  conclude  that  they  are  validly 
ordained.  First,  Was  Parker,  truly  consecrated  by 
Barlow,  in  the  manner  declared  ?  Second,  Was  Barlow 
himself  consecrated  ?  Third,  Was  King  Edward's  form 
a  valid  form  ? 

"If  these  three  questions  can  be  satisfactorily  an- 
swered, then  the  ordinations  of  the  English  Church  are 
valid  ;  its  bishops  have  the  same  episcopal  character  as 
the  Catholic  bishops ;  its  ministers  are  priests,  equally 
as  those  who  minister  at  Catholic  altars  ;  in  a  word,  the 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy  has  been  preserved  in  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  although,  of  course,  being  separated  from 
the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church,  they  are  with- 
ered branches,  through  which  the  vivifying  sap  of  Apos- 
tolical jurisdiction  does  not  circulate,  and  which,  con- 
sequently, instead  of  bearing  fruit,  impede  the  rays  of 
light  and  grace  from  reaching  the  deluded  people  that 
repose  under  their  scanty  shade. 

"  But  if  a  single  one  of  the  above  three  facts  be  dis- 
proved ;  if  a  single  one  of  them  be  not  absolutely  cer- 
tain, although  somewhat  probable ;  if  positive  and 
unsuspicious    testimony    be    not    at    hand    whereby 


WAS  MA  TTI1E  IV  PARKER  CON  SEC R  A  TED?        63 

all  three  can  be  established ;  then  the  validity  of 
the  Anglican  ordinations  is  either  positively  dis- 
proved, or  not  absolutely  certain  ;  and  consequently, 
there  can  be  no  obligation  to  listen  to  men,  who  can- 
not prove  that  they  have  received  a  participation  of 
the  Apostolic  ministry,  whereby  they  are  empowered 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  minister  at  the  altar.  Noth- 
ing short  of  certainty  on  this  point,  can,  in  such  a  case, 
justify  priest  or  people  in  admitting  the  validity  of 
such  ordinations." 

Parker's  and  Barlow's  consecration  are  questions  of 
fact,  and  not  of  doctrine,  questions  of  history,  matters 
of  opinion  to  be  determined  by  historical  research, 
and  on  such  evidence  as  would  suffice  in  any  other 
question  or  fact  of  history.  "  But  whatever  opinion 
we  may  form  on  either  or  both  these  questions  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that,  on  account  of  the  form  said 
to  be  used  in  the  consecration  of  Parker,  that  devised 
by  Edward  VI.,  Anglican,  and  consequently  Protestant 
Episcopal  orders,  are  vitiated  and  invalidated."  This, 
after  all,  is  the  only  important  point:  Anglican  orders 
are  invalid  on  account  of  the  invalidity  of  the  form 
invented  by  Cranmer,  or,  as  the  act  has  it,  devised 
by  Edward  VI.,  and  used,  if  any  was  used,  or  if 
there  was  anything  more  than  the  Nag's  Head  farce,  in 
the  consecration  of  Parker.  To  this  point  we  would 
prefer  to  confine  ourselves,  as  it  would  simplify  the 
whole  controversy,  as  Canon  Raynal  intimates  in  his 
admirable  little  treatise  on  "  The  Ordinal  of  Edward 
VI.,"  to  concede  "  that  Barlow  was  a  true  bishop,  and 
that  he  consecrated  Parker  on  the  seventeenth  of  De- 
cember, 1559."  There  is  no  necessity  for  us,  and  can 
be  little  advantage  in  following  Drs.  Mason,  Lee.  and 


64         WA  S  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  ? 

other  Anglican  writers,  in  their  laborious  attempts  to 
prove  the  reality  of  Barlow's  and  Parker's  consecra- 
tion. With  them  failure  to  prove  either  is  fatal  to 
their  cause,  whilst  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory- 
demonstration  of  both  will  avail  absolutely  nothing 
towards  the  solution  of  the  real  question  at  issue,  for 
without  a  valid  form  no  sacrament  can  be  conferred, 
and  if  the  form  used  in  the  consecration  of  the  first 
Anglican  bishop,  on  wiiom  confessedly  the  Anglican 
hierarchy  depends,  from  whom  Anglican  orders  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  derived,  was  radically  defective  or  invalid, 
then  there  are  no  orders,  no  priesthood,  no  hierarchy  in 
the  Anglican  or  Episcopal  Church.  We  feel  then  that 
it  is  only  to  entangle  and  complicate  matters,  to  discuss 
these  historical  questions,  which,  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject  and  the  contradictory  testimonies  of  opposing 
and  interested  witnesses,  can  never  be  satisfactorily  and 
conclusively  settled.  Yet  as  such  stress  has  been  laid 
on  these  comparatively  unimportant  points,  and  so 
much  cavil  over  some  statements,  we  mfust  turn  aside 
again  from  the  main  issue,  and  after  correcting  some 
misrepresentations,  we  shall' briefly  notice  some  of  the 
grounds  on  which  Parker's  consecration  and  the  Lam- 
beth Register  and  Barlow's  episcopal  character  have 
been  questioned  or  impugned  ;  grounds  which,  even  if 
they  fail  to  persuade,  will  hardly  fail  to  convince  the 
reader  that  it  grates  harshly  on  believing  ears,  nay, 
sounds  almost  like  blasphemy,  to  assert  that  "  the  canon 
of  Scripture  rests  on  no  better  evidence"  than  the  con- 
secration of  Barlow  or  Parker.  And  yet  this,  by  im- 
plication, at  least,  is  asserted  by  those  who  assume 
that  the  succession  in  the  Church  of  England  "  rests  on 
the  same  kind  of  proof  by  which  we  receive  the  canon 


WA  S  MA  TTBE  W  PA  RKER  CON  SEC Ji  A  TED  ?        65 

of  holy  Scripture."  We  maintain  that  even  if  the 
Lambeth  Register  be  genuine,  and  the  consecration  of 
Parker  took  place,  as  asserted,  at  the  hands  of  Barlow, 
an  apostate  monk,  it  is  very  doubtful  that  Barlow 
himself  was  ever  consecrated,  or  anything  more  than 
bishop  elect.  And  even  if  Barlow  was  a  regularly  con- 
secrated bishop,  and  went  through  the  form  of  con- 
secrating Parker,  the  form  used,  viz.:  that  devised,  as  the 
act  has  it,  by  Edward,  was  notoriously  insufficient  and 
invalid. 

But  what  will  you,  what  can  you  think,  of  the  honesty, 
or  truthfulness,  or  morality,  of  any  person  who  quoting 
freely  from  Dr.  Lingard,  and  presumably  with  Dr.  Lin- 
gard  before  him,  makes  that  author  testify  to  the  validity 
of  Parker's  consecration!  "  Dr.  Lingard,"  we  are  told, 
"  shows  that  this  act  of  itself  proves  the  consecration 
of  Parker  to  have  been  in  all  respects  regular  and 
validly  performed,  according  to  the  reformed  Ordinal." 
Now,  Dr.  Lingard  in  the  very  correspondence  referred 
to,  expressly  says,  that  he  confines  himself  to  the  fact 
of  Parker's  consecration,  but  whether  it  was  valid  or 
invalid  was  a  question  with  which,  as  a  writer  of  his- 
tory, he  had  no  concern.  Dr.  Lingard,  like  many  other 
Catholic  writers,  investigated  the  fact  of  Parker's  con- 
secration, and  hesitated  not  to  acknowledge  his  belief 
therein,  but  Dr.  Lingard  did  not,  and  no  Catholic  can, 
without  rashness,  acknowledge  its  validity. 

Though  Dr.  Lingard,  and  some  other  respectable 
Catholic  authors  concede  the  reality  of  Parker's  con- 
secration, and  believe  Barlow  was  a  bishop,  and  ac- 
knowledge the  Lambeth  Register  as  a  genuine  docu- 
ment ;  and  although  we,  for  argument's  sake,  and  to 
eliminate  unimportant  side  issues,  that  serve  only  to 


66         WAS  MATTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRATED? 

complicate,  embarrass,  and  obscure  the  main  question, 
would  prefer  to  concede  the  same,  yet  in  order  to 
prove  that  "  somebody  has  not  cruelly  imposed  on 
us,  in  the  matter  of  the  Nag's  Head  fable,"  and  that 
"  all  respectable  Roman  Catholics  do  not  dismiss  the 
story  of  the  '  Nag's  Head'  with  contempt,"  we  shall 
cite  names  as  respectable,  perhaps,  as  even  these  of 
Dr.  Lingard,  and  the  Anglican  defenders  of  the  Lam- 
beth consecration  :  and  authorities,  perhaps,  as  grave 
and  trustworthy  as  those  produced  by  them,  disowning 
and  disproving,  or  what  in  our  case  is  equivalent  to 
that,  seriously  questioning,  and  throwing  grave  doubts 
upon,  (i),  the  fact  of  Parker's  consecration  at  Lam- 
beth;  (2),  the  register  on  which  the  proof  mainly 
rests  ;  (3),  and  especially  on  Barlow's  ow :i  consecration. 
Yet  we  do  not  pretend  to  settle  these  questions  ;  proofs 
pro  and  con,  must  be  weighed,  and  each  one  must 
decide  for  himself;  to  us,  and  to  our  argument,  and 
our  cause,  the  decision  is  immaterial,  for  we  hold,  and 
think  we  can  prove,  that  even  conceding  all  these 
points,  the  consecration  of  Parker  was  certainly  invalid, 
for  reasons  to  be  given  hereafter,  showing  that  a  legi- 
timate, and  recognized  sacramental  form,  as  well  as  a 
due  intention  in  the  minister,  are  requisite  for  the 
valid  administration  of  orders. 

Now,  as  to  the  Nag's  Head  story,  which  we  are 
told,  "all  respectable  Catholic  writers  dismiss  with 
contempt,"  Dr.  Kenrick.  "  a  respectable  prelate,"  ad- 
duces quite  an  array  of  respectable  Catholic  names, 
not  only  not  dismissing  the  story  with  contempt,  but 
vouching  for  its  truth.  We  are  indeed  told  that 
the  late  Hugh  Davey  Evans,  a  profound  and  learned 
ornament  of  the  Maryland  bar,  ".  has  not  left  a  shred 


WA  S  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  ?        (yj 

of  Dr.  Kenrick's  cause  untwisted  or  unrent,"  but 
we  beg  to  be  excused  for  not  accepting  this  bare 
assertion,  for,  although  we  have  not  been  able  to  pro- 
cure a  copy  of  Mr.  Evans'  able  essay,  we  have  seen  the 
second  edition  of  Dr.  Kenrick's  valuable  work,  revised 
and  augmented,  in  which  he  replies  to  Mr.  Evans'  criti- 
cisms, in  a  most  masterly  manner,  and  we  still  find 
untwisted  and  unrent,  intact  and  unimpaired,  every  sub- 
stantial link,  every  strand  in  his  chain  of  unanswerable 
arguments  against  the  "  Validity  of  Anglican  Ordina- 
tions and  Anglican  claims  to  Apostolical  succession." 
We  may,  moreover,  unhesitatingly  affirm  that  the  pe- 
rusal of  Mr.  Evans'  essay  will  not  "  force  on  any  can- 
did mind  the  conviction  that  so  respectable  a  man  as 
Dr.  Kenrick  could  hardly  have  undertaken  such  a 
task,  except  under  some  compulsion  of  superiors  to 
which,  as  in  the  later  matter  of  infallibility,  he  pros- 
tituted his  own  convictions,  under  the  remorseless  dic- 
tation of  Jesuits."  We  are  satisfied,  in  the  second 
place,  that  no  profound  and  learned  orname?it  of  the 
Maryland  bar,  or  any  other  bar,  in  fact  very  few  besides 
the  writer  whom  we  are  reviewing,  would  have  the  im- 
pertinence to  charge  a  respectable  prelate,  a  high-toned 
gentleman,  with  such  cringing  servility  and  baseness 
of  soul,  as  to  prostitute  his  talents,  at  the  dictation  of 
any  man,  or  set  of  men,  to  disseminate  error,  or  write 
in  any  cause  against  his  own  convictions.  We  are  satis- 
fied, in  the  third  place,  that  the  independence  of  charac- 
ter, uncompromising  firmness,  and  stubborn  self-asser- 
tion born  of  conscious  intellectual  endowments,  which 
may  at  times  carry  a  man  to  extremes,  or  at  least  make 
him  appear  to  occupy  a  false  position,  and  which,  unless 
safe-guarded  by  genuine  humility,  and  rare  Christian 


68  WA  S  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED  ? 

piety,  may  be  perilous  to  faith,  are  at  the  same  time 
surest  guarantees  against  sycophancy,  andservile  pros- 
titution of  talents  or  mean  pandering  to  human  power. 
Such  characteristics  belong  to  those  who  rebel 
against  a  divine  authority,  or  refuse  submission  to  a 
divinely  authorized  and  infallible  teacher. 

An  "  Old  Catholic"  bishop,  like  Reinkens,  may  pro- 
fess absolute  dependence  on,  and  unreserved  submis- 
sion to  civil  rulers,  and  the  will,  and  good  pleasure  of 
those  in  power,  for  the  hireling,  whose  own  the  sheep  are 
not,  fleeth  when  the  wolf  cometh  to  snatch,  and  scatter, 
and  devour  the  sheep,  because  he  is  a  hireling,  and  hath 
no  care  for  the  sheep ;  as  an  able  eloquent  Catholic 
deputy  in  the  Reichsrath  said,  commenting  on  Rein- 
kens's  first  would-be  charge  to  an  unknown,  and  unde- 
termined flock  ;  but  the  Catholic  prelate  will  not  betray 
his  trust,  or  compromise  his  conscience,  or  degrade  his 
manhood,  at  the  bidding  or  dictation  of  any  man,  or 
any  merely  human  authority,  whilst  he  freely  submits 
to  God,  and  vindicates  his  God-given  freedom  and 
manhood,  by  the  most  implicit  and  unreserved  sub- 
mission of  himself,  his  intellect,  and  will,  to  the  au- 
thority and  law  of  God.  Some  cannot  understand 
this,  and  hence,  whilst  they  wonder  at  our  not  accepting 
the  dictum  of  our  own  Catholic  historian,  Dr.  Lingard, 
they  are  indignant  and  even  abusive,  because  a  Catho- 
lic bishop  acknowledges  an  infallible  Church,  and  an 
infallible  Pope,  and  bows  a  willing  and  cheerful  obedi- 
ence to  the  decisions  of  an  infallible  oecumenical 
council.  We  are  moreover  satisfied,  that  howsoever 
a  lawyer  may,  by  special  pleading,  assail  the  arguments 
of  Dr.  Kenrick,  or  differ  with  him,  in  regard  to  the 
true  interpretation  and  force  of  legal  documents,  or 


WAS  MATTHEW  PARKER  CONSECRATED?        69 

demur  to  some  of  his  principles  or  criteria  for  deter- 
mining what  records  are  genuine,  and  what  spurious, 
or  even  controvert  some  of  his  particular  conclusions, 
yet  any  unbiassed  man,  who  reads  his  "  Anglican  Or- 
dinations," and  ponders  seriously  his  replies  to  objec- 
.  tions  urged  by  Anglicans  against  the  so-called  Nag's 
Head  fabrication,  and  his  answer,  paragraph  by  para- 
graph, to  Dr.  Lingard's  arguments,  must  admit  that  he 
has  vindicated,  as  he  proposed  to  do,  the  old  English 
Catholic  divines,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Husenbeth, 
for,  at  least,  upwards  of  two  centuries,  regarded  the 
Nag's  Head  consecration  as  a  fact,  the  certainty  of  which 
was  sustained  by  stubborn  evidence,  from  the  charge  of 
blind  credulity,  or  a  determined  will  to  deny  the  best 
authenticated  facts.  He  did  not  undertake — he  tells 
us  himself,  and  we  say  the  same  for  ourselves — "  to  es- 
tablish the  truth  of  the  Nag's  Head  consecration  ;  but 
merely  to  examine  whether  it  be  so  entirely  destitute 
of  probability  or  proof,  as  has  been  pretended  ;  and 
whether  the  vindicators  of  Catholic  faith,  who  publicly 
avowed  their  belief  in  its  reality,  at  a  period  when  they 
had  better  opportunities  of  ascertaining  the  truth 
than  we  now  can  possibly  be  supposed  to  have,  were 
imposed  on  by  an  absurd  tale." 

Among  those  distinguished  divines  is  Dr.  Talbot, 
archbishop  of  Dublin,  who  in  a  treatise  on  "The  Nul- 
lity of  the  Prelate  clergy  in  England,"  says  :  "  It  is 
now  a  century  of  years  since  the  Nag's  Head,  story 
happened.  It  has  constantly  been  related,  and  cred- 
ited by  wise  men,  as  certain  truth,  ever  since  the  year 
1 559  (the  year  it  was  acted  in):  it  was  never  contra- 
dicted by  any,  until  it  was  imagined  by  our  adversa- 
ries that  the   new   registers  (Mason's),   might   contest 


70 


WAS  MA  TTHE  W  PARKER  CONSECRA  TED? 


with  our  ancient  tradition,  and  make  the  Nag's  Head 
story  seem  improbable  in  the  year  1613,  of  which  no 
man  doubted,  for  the  space  of  fifty-two  years  before. 
The  Catholic  bishops  and  doctors  of  Queen  Mary's  time 
were  sober  and  wise  men ;  they  believed  the  story ; 
and  recounted  it  to  Parsons,  Fitzherbert,  Dr.  Kellison, 
Holiwood,  Dr.  Champney,  Fitzsimmons,  etc.  Parsons, 
believed  it,  Fitzherbert  and  the  rest  above  named, 
gave  so  much  credit  to  it,  that  they  published  it  in 
print."  We  find  in  an  appendix  to  "Dodd's  Church 
History  of  England,"  a  dissertation  containing  a  sum- 
mary of  the  arguments  employed  to  support  both  sides 
of  the  controversy  concerning  the  Nag's  Head  ordina- 
tion. Dodd  cites  Dr.  Champney,  who,  after  a  lengthy 
account  of  the  whole  transaction,  how  they  met  at  the 
Nag's  Head  ;  how  the  old  man  Kitchen  of  Llandaff, 
feigning  blindness,  refused  to  consecrate  ;  how  they 
then  turned  upon  him  as  an  old  fool  who  imagined 
that  they  could  not  be  bishops  unless  greased;  how 
Scorey  took  the  Bible,  and  laying  it  on  their  shoulders 
and  saying,  "take  authority  to  preach  the  word  of  God 
sincerely,"  they  rose  up  bishops,  concludes  thus  :  "This 
whole  narration,  without  adding  or  detracting  any 
word  pertaining  to  the  substance  of  the  matter,  I  have 
heard,  oftener  than  once,  of  Mr.  Thomas  Bluet,  a  grave 
learned,  and  judicious  priest;  he  having  received  it  of 
Mr.  Neal,  a  man  of  good  sort  and  imputation.  *  *  * 
Again,  Mr.  Bluet  had  other  good  means  to  be  informed 
of  this  matter,  being  a  long  time  prisoner  with  Dr. 
Watson,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  divers  other  men  of 
mark,  of  the  ancient  clergy,  in  whose  time,  and  in 
whose  sight,  as  a  man  may  say,  this  matter  was  done. 
Of  this  narration  there  are,  I  think,  as  many  witnesses 


WA  S  MA  T  7 II E  W  PA RATER  CONSECRA  TED ?        y  l 

yet  living,  as  there  are  priests  remaining  alive,  that 
have  been  prisoners  with  Mr.  Bluet,  in  Wisbeach 
Castle ;  where  I  also  heard  it  of  him."  The  historian 
then  gives  the  names  and  dates,  and  works  of  the 
authors,  who  have  handed  down  to  posterity  and  pub- 
lished the  Nag's  Head  consecration  ;  and  referring  to 
Dr.  Talbot's  "  Nullity  of  the  Prelate  clergy,"  anno  1659, 
he  says :  "  Wherein  the  learned  author  produces  sev- 
eral proofs,  in  confirmation  of  the  account  given  by 
Champney."  Again,  after  giving  the  opposite  views  of 
writers  of  the  Church  of  England  at  considerable 
length,  he  subjoins:  "  It  would  exceed  my  designed 
brevity  to  make  a  distinct  reply  to  these  exceptions 
Protestant  writers  have  made  against  the  Nag's  Head 
story.  But  Dr.  Talbot,  the  Catholic  archbishop  of 
Dublin,  having  considered  them  very  fully  and  learn- 
edly, in  his  treatise  on  the  Nullity,  etc.,  I  remit  the 
reader  to  that  work,  where  he  may  be  more  fully  in- 
formed of  all  the  particulars  belonging  to  this  contro- 
versy." "  From  which,"  says  Rev.  Mr.  Tierney,  F.R.S., 
F.S.A.,  "  it  is  evident  that  Dodd  was  inclined  to  favor 
the  story  of  the  Nag's  Head  consecration,"  though  he 
(Mr.  Tierney)  felt  compelled  to  adopt  the  opposite 
opinion.  Champney,  in  his  treatise,  De  vocatione  minis- 
trorum,  positively  asserts:  "That  not  only  Catholics  of 
unquestionable  integrity,  who  were  eye-witnesses  of 
the  affair,  testify  to  the  solemn  meeting  at  the  Nag's 
Head  ;  but  also  John  Stowe,  that  most  famous  chrono- 
grapher  of  England,  a  professor  of  the  reformed  re- 
ligion, is  witness  of  the  same,  who  diligently  inquired 
into  all  circumstances  of  this  action,  though  he  feared 
to  relate  them  in  his  chronicle."  It  is  evident  that  Dr. 
Milner,  F.S.A.,  who  is  not  an  ignorant  man,  nor  one 


72         WA  S  MA  T  THE  W  PA  RATER  CONSR  CRA  TED  ? 

that  would  write  hastily,  or. without  consideration,  on 
so  important  a  subject,  as  Dr.  Lingard  charges,  had  no 
faith  in  the  Lambeth  consecration ;  and  with  these 
names,  and  these  authorities,  may  we  not  venture  to 
hold  an  opinion  concerning  an  historical  fact  contrary 
to  that  of  Dr.  Lingard,  able  and  reliable  though  he  be, 
as  a  Catholic  historian,  especially  when,  as  Dr.  Kenrick 
remarks:  "The  arguments  brought  forward  by  him  on 
this  subject  were  derived  from  authorities,  the  authen- 
ticity of  which  had  been  long  and  publicly  questioned, 
and  he  was  urging  the  objections  which  Courayer  had, 
more  than  a  century  ago,  put  forward,  and  which  had 
been  triumphantly  refuted  at  the  time  by  the  learned 
Hardouin,  and  in  the  celebrated  work  of  Father  Le 
Ouien."  But  enough,  and  more  than  enough,  about 
the  Nag's  Head.  We  must  hasten  to  conclude  what  we 
have  to  say  on  the  Lambeth  Register,  and  the  conse- 
cration of  Barlow,  so  as  to  come  to  what  we  regard  as 
the  point  on  which  the  whole  question  of  the  validity 
of  Anglican  and  Episcopalian  orders  hinge,  viz.:  the 
invalid  form  devised  by  Edward  VI.,  including  the 
probable  absence  of  due  intention  in  the  consecrating 
would-be  prelates. 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER.  73 


VI. 

THE   LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

HAVING  now  sufficiently  discussed  the  historical 
question  of  Parker's  consecration,  and  shown 
that  it  was  questioned  and  positively  denied  by  re- 
spectable, learned,  and  distinguished  writers  and  divines, 
and  that  from  the  year  1559  until  161 3  the  first  bishops  of 
the  reformed  Church  had  been  repeatedly  taunted  with 
the  Nag's  Head  story,  without  any  attempt  being  made, 
for  upwards  of  fifty  years,  to  produce  any  documentary 
evidence  of  a  regular  consecration,  or  any  public  refer- 
ence to  the  Lambeth  Register,  we  must  now,  as  briefly 
as  possible,  examine  the  authenticity  of  this  Register 
on  which  Anglicans  mainly,  if  not  entirely,  rest  their 
proof  of  Parker's  consecration  at  Lambeth ;  to  whom, 
consequently,  clearest  evidence  of  its  authenticity  is 
of  paramount  importance. 

We  must  again,  however,  remind  our  readers  that 
this  is  a  historical  question,  not  materially  affecting 
the  main  issue  of  Anglican  succession  or  Anglican 
orders,  so  that,  whether,  after  a  careful  weighing  of 
authorities  and  documentary  evidence  we  regard  the 
Register  as  authentic,  or  spurious,  we  must  not,  as 
Canon  Raynal  warns  us.  "attach  undue  importance  to 
a  mere  historical  fact,  and  overlook  the  main  point  of 
the  controversy,  viz.  :  the  invalidity  of  the  forms  in- 


74 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


vented  by  Cranmer  and  inserted  into  the  Rite,  which 
is  said  to  have  been  used  at  the  consecration  of  Parker." 
Dr.  Lingard  and  other  Catholic  writers  may  declare 
"  they  see  no  reason  for  pronouncing  the  Register  a 
forgery,"  whilst  disavowing  any  intention  of  deciding 
the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  act,  nay,  expressly 
and  openly  flouting  Anglican  claims  to  valid  orders  or 
a  legitimate  episcopacy.  For  ourselves,  we  would  not 
even  stop  to  consider  this  point  at  all,  were  it  not  to 
convince  certain  writers  that  the  charge  of  forgery  is 
not  a  desperate  artifice  gotten  up  by  Jesuits  to  im- 
pugn the  Anglican  succession,  and  to  show  that,  not- 
withstanding the  u  proverbial  purity  of  law  and  legal  pro- 
cesses in  England,  and  the  care  taken  of  public  records 
and  facts  made  historical  in  printed  pages,  and  thrown 
open  to  the  eyes  atid  inquiries  of  the  most  intelligent  and 
truth-loving  nation  of  the  world"  the  public  records  are 
not  above  suspicion,  or  to  be  accepted  with  unques- 
tioning credulity,  that  forgery  was  not  uncommon,  and 
that  the  Lambeth  Register,  if  not  a  forgery,  is  at  least 
a  very  suspicious  document,  and  that,  as  Canon  Est- 
court  admits,  "  there  are  grave  doubts  with  regard  to 
the  authenticity  of  the  Register  itself,  as  an  original 
and  contemporaneous  document,  or  record  of  the  facts 
as  they  occurred."  This  Register,  then  publicly  re- 
ferred to  for  the  first  time,  in  a  work  published  in  the 
year  1613,  by  Francis  Mason,  chaplain  of  Abbot,  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  testifies  that  Matthew  Parker  was 
consecrated  on  the  17th  of  December,  1559,  by  Barlow, 
Scorey,  Coverdale  and  Hodgkins.  It  was  at  once  de- 
nounced as  a  fabrication  by  Catholic  writers.  Fitz- 
herbert,  "  a  man  of  great  learning  and  holy  life,"  hear- 
ing with  astonishment  that  one  Mr.  Mason  was  at- 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


75 


tempting  to  prove  the  consecration  of  the  first  Protest- 
ant bishops  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  by  a 
register  testifying  that  four  bishops  consecrated  Mr. 
Parker,  writes :  "  This  is  not  a  new  quarrel,  lately 
raised,  but  vehemently  urged,  divers  times  heretofore, 
by  Catholics  many  years  ago,  yea,  in  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  queen's  reign,  as  namely,  by  the  learned 
Doctors  Harding  and  Stapleton,  against  Mr.  Jewel  and 
Mr.  Horn,  urging  them  to  show  how  and  by  whom 
they  were  made  bishops."  And  he  continues  :  "What 
trow  ye  was  answered  thereto  ?  Were  there  any  bishops 
named  who  consecrated  them  ?  Were  there  any  wit- 
nesses alleged  of  their  consecration  ?  Was  Mr.  Mason's 
register,  or  any  authentic  document,  produced  either 
by  Jewel  or  Horn?" 

Kellison,  with  a  like  feeling  of  wonderment  at  the  in- 
explicable silence  of  the  Protestant  clergy,  during 
more  than  half  a  century,  during  which  they  were  re- 
peatedly and  tauntingly  told  that  their  bishops, 
Parker,  Horn,  etc.,  had  not  been  consecrated,  thus  ex- 
pressed himself:  "But  as  for  your  registers,  I  know 
not  whence  you  have  exhumed  them  ;  they  are  at 
least  on  many  accounts  suspected  by  us.  For,  first, 
when  in  the  beginning  of  the  new  Church  of  England, 
it  was  objected  that  these  ministers  and  bishops  were 
neither  truly  nor  lawfully  ordained,  they  would  have 
easily  silenced  them  (those  objecting),  and  yet  they 
dared  not  bring  forward  those  acts  or  refer  to  them. 
This  much  increases  our  suspicion  that  they  were  so 
late  produced  after  having  remained  hid  so  long;  al- 
though they  had  been  so  often  called  for  by  our  doc- 
tors." With  the  learned  and  critical  author  of  "  An- 
glican Ordinations,"  from  whom  we  have  borrowed  the 


76 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


above  extracts,  slightly  abbreviated,  we  repeat: 
"  Whatever  explanation  may  be  given  of  the  non-pro- 
duction of  the  Register  before  the  year  1613,  it  is  evident 
that  the  fact  is  calculated  to  awaken  suspicion  ;  and, 
therefore,  those  Catholic  divines  who  called  its  authen- 
ticity into  question,  may  have  been  influenced  by  other 
motives  than  those  assigned  by  their  adversaries." 
'The  authenticity  of  the  Lambeth  or  Parker's  Regis- 
ter," says  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  in  a  note  to  his  sixth 
historical  lecture,  "has  been  ever  since  the  time  of 
James  I.  matter  of  dispute.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
enter  into  any  details  on  the  question ;  and  I  will 
merely  add,  that  not  having  met  with,-  or  discovered 
any  solid  reasons  for  denying  its  genuineness,  I  shall 
appeal  to  it  in  the  text  as  a  document,  which,  though 
I  see  no  reason  to  believe  it  spurious,  others  may  not 
choose  to  admit  as  evidence."  To  this  his  American 
editor  appends  the  following  note  : 

"  The  author  of  these  valuable  Lectures,  with  that 
spirit  of  liberality  which  distinguishes  his  work,  has 
followed,  in  the  text,  the  view  most  javorable  to  the 
Anglican  ordinations.  His  authorities  will  be  found 
below.  With  every  wish  to  be  equally  impartial,  we 
confess  that,  to  our  mind,  the  authenticity  of  the 
Lambeth,  or  Parker's  Register  is  more  than  suspicious 
— its  fabrication  is  next  to  a  certainty.  To  discuss  the 
subject  in  a  brief  note  is  not  our  intention :  it  would 
moreover  be  foreign  from  the  character  of  these  Lec- 
tures, intended,  as  they  are,  to  be  historical  and  not 
controversial.  Viewing  the  question,  then,  merely  as  a 
debated  point  of  history,  the  following  are  some  of 
the  heads  of  argument  which  have  led  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Lambeth  Register  cannot  be  admitted 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


77 


as  evidence    of    Parker's   consecration,  and   that  the 
Anglican  ordinations  are  null. 

"  1st.  The  Anglican  ordinations  were  contested  from 
the  very  infancy  of  the  established  Church,  and  by 
several  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Catholic 
writers  that  the  16th  century  "produced.  The  very  title 
of  Mason's  work,  published  in  1613,  himself  a  Protes- 
tant, places  this  fact  beyond  a  doubt. 

"  2d.  Fifty-three  years  passed  away  between  the  sup- 
posed consecration  of  Parker,  and  the  first  public 
reference  by  Mason  to  the  Lambeth  Register.  If  the 
Register  existed  before,  why  were  the  Protestant 
clergy  silent  for  half  a  century,  amid  the  taunts  of  their 
Catholic  adversaries — that  these  ministers  and  bishops, 
although  mitred,  were  not  truly  nor  lawfully  ordained? 
This  silence,  considering  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  religious  excitement  of  the  times,  is  al- 
most conclusive  evidence  that  no  such  register  then 
existed. 

"  3d.  Had  Parker  been  consecrated  in  the  chapel  at 
Lambeth,  according  to  the  form  prescribed  by  the 
ritual  of  Edward  VI.,  and  as  described  in  the  Register 
itself,  the  affair  must  have  been  notorious.  How  then, 
again,  shall  we  account  for  the  repeated  public  denial, 
not  only  of  the  validity,  but  of  the  fact  of  his  consecra- 
tion, by  the  earliest  Catholic  writers,  and  for  the  sus- 
picious silence  of  Protestants  ? 

"  4th.  It  is  not  true  that  the  Protestants  appealed  to 
the  Register,  on  the  first  publication  by  Sacrobosco 
in  1603,  °f  the  story  of  Parker's  consecration,  etc.,  at 
the  Nag's  Head  tavern.  It  was  only  ten  years  after- 
wards, in  161 3,  that  the  world  was  informed  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  document. 


yS  THE  LAMBE  TH  REGISTER. 

"  5th.  Had  the  Register  been  referred  to  before — had 
its  existence  been  a  matter  of  public  notoriety,  would 
six  bishops,  with  Abbot,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  at 
their  head,  have  thought  it  worth  their  time  to  assem- 
ble, for  the  purpose  of  showing  it  to  a  few  Catholic 
priests,  brought  from  their  prisons  to  look  at  it?  and 
when  from  their  prisons  they  asked  for  a  second  look  at 
the  Register,  why  was  it  refused  them  ?  Was  it,  indeed, 
from  fear  they  might  destroy  the  document  ?  their 
manacles  might  have  been  easily  tightened.  To  us 
this  so-called  "examination'  is  almost  proof  positive 
that  the  Register  was  a  forgery. 

"  6th.  The  wording  of  the  record  in  the  Register  is 
suspicious,  in  as  much  as  it  is  different  from  that  of  all 
the  entries  that  precede  and  follow  it:  its  circumstan- 
tiality, so  uncalled  for  in  such  documents,  is  scarcely 
less  suspicious. 

"  7th.  Mason  was  chaplain  to  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury;  as  such,  it  was  both  in  his  power  to  falsify  the 
records  at  Lambeth,  and  his  interest  to  do  so ;  two  cir- 
cumstances, considering  the  temper  of  those  times, 
which  greatly  invalidate  his  evidence ;  especially  when 
such  evidence  was  so  long  and  so  vainly  called  for,  be- 
fore, by  the  Catholic  writers. 

"  Goodwin's  work,  De  Praesulibns  Angliae,  appeared 
first  in  English,  in  1601,  and  afterwards  in  Latin,  in  161 5. 
The  first  edition,  published  before  the  appearance  of 
Mason's  work,  says  not  a  word  about  Parker's  conse- 
cration at  Lambeth  ;  the  second,  published  two  years 
afterwards,  repeats  Mason's  tale.  Such  being  the 
case,  it  would  be  safer  for  Episcopalians  to  let 
Goodwin  pass;  his  previous  silence  is  again  almost 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  Lam- 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


79 


beth  Register,  nor  of  Parker's  pretended  consecration. 

"  Camden  s  Annals  also  appeared  in  1615,  two  years 
after  Mason's  work:  to  copy  Mason  was  no  difficult 
task,  and  was  tic  most  likely  course  to  please  the  court 
and  his  patron,  James  I. 

"As  for  the  work  on  the  antiquities  of  the  British 
Church,  ascribed  to  Parker  himself,  it  is  in  the  same 
predicament,  and  has  altogether  too  much  the  air  of 
testimony  "got  up  for  the  occasion,"  to  outweigh 
the  serious  objections,  suspicions,  etc.,  which  on  every 
side  beset  the  question  of  Anglican  ordinations.  In- 
deed, the  more  we  study  this  subject,  the  more  decided 
is.  our  conviction  that  the  Lambeth  Register  of  Parker's 
consecration  will  find  its  proper  place  among  the  mass 
of  documents  to  which  the  Protestant  historian, 
Whitaker,  refers  in  the  following  candid,  though  pain- 
ful acknowledgement :  4  Forgery — I  blush  for  the 
honor  of  Protestantism,  while  I  write  it — seems  to  have 
been  peculiar  to  the  reformed."' 

This  Protestant  divine  repeats  the  same  more  than 
once  in  his  vindication  of  Mary,  the  murdered  queen 
of  Scots :  "  Forgery  appears  to  have  been  the  peculiar 
disease  of  Protestantism,"  and  again,  "I  look  in  vain 
for  '>ne  of  these  accursed  outrages  of  imposition  among 
the  disciples  of  Popery."  We  beg,  moreover,  to  direct 
the  attention  of  our  friends  who  extol  with  so  much 
pride  and  apparent  self-complacency  the  stainless  and 
unimpeachable  public  records  of  England,  and  the 
proverbial  purity  of  law  and  legal  processes  of  the  most 
intelligent  and  truth-loving  nation  of  the  zoorld,  to  the 
evidence  furnished  by  a  clause  in  a  general  pardon 
granted  by  James  I.,  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  that 
public   documents    even    in   that   model   truth-loving 


So  THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

land,  were  not  only  liable  to  falsification,  but  that 
frequent  forgeries  and  interpolations  had  been  per- 
petrated in  his  own  reign,  and  that  of  his  immediate 
predecessor:  "We  also  pardon,  remit  and  release  by 
these  presents,  to  the  aforesaid  A.  B.,  all  and  every 
offences  and  transgressions,  by  erasing  and  underlining 
of  any  rolls,  records,  briefs,  warrants,  recognitions  or 
other  documents  of  ours,  or  any  of  our  predecessors, 
or  progenitors  whatsoever,  in  any  court  or  courts  of 
ours,  or  of  any  of  our  predecessors,  or  our  progenitors, 
done  or  perpetrated  before  the  aforesaid  20th  day  of 
March."  But  is  it  not  playing  on  the  ignorance  or 
credulity  of  his  readers,  when  a  controversialist  not 
only  so  boldly  refers  to  the  sacrosanct,  untainted 
English  records,  but  says  that  "any  flaw  in  the  titles 
and  legislative  rights  of  Anglican  bishops,  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  challenged  by  statesmen,  on  ac- 
count of  the  jealousy  with  which,  for  three  centuries, 
every  step  in  the  Anglican  communion  was  watched 
by  active  enemies?"  thereby  insinuating  that  no  flaw 
was  found,  that  the  titles  and  legislative  rights  of  the 
Parliament  bishops  were  unchallenged,  when  he  knows, 
and  the  fact  is  patent  on  the  open  page  of  history 
that  at  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  James  I,. 
after  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  the  tradition  of  the  or- 
dination made  at  the  Nag's  Head  tavern  in  Cheapside, 
was  loudly  invoked  by  Catholics  and  Presbyterians. 

"  The  Presbyterians  said  that  the  pretended  bishops 
were  mere  priests  like  themselves,  having  only  been 
ordained  by  the  imposition  of  Parker's  hands,  who  him- 
self had  received  it  from  a  simple  priest,  Scorey,  at  the 
tavern,  and  consequently  if  they  had  seats  in  Parlia- 
ment, the  Presbyterians  should  not  be  excluded  from 


THE  LA  MBE  TH  RE  GIS  TER.  8 1 

them."  For  the  same  reason  the  Catholics  maintained 
that,  ''the  episcopacy  and  priesthood  had  ceased  in 
England."  And  he  can  hardly  be  ignorant,  that  among 
the  pleas  put  forth  by  Bishop  Bonner,  of  London,  in 
answer  to  the  indictment  by  Horn,  for  refusing  the 
oath  of  the  queen's  supremacy,  was  the  following: 
"That  the  said  Mr.  Robert  Home,  not  being  lawful 
bishop  of  Winchester,  but  an  usurper,  intruder  and 
unlawful  possessor  thereof,  for  that,  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  Catholike  Churche,  and  the  statutes  and 
ordinances  of  this  realme,  the  said  Mr.  Robert  Home 
was  not  elected,  consecrated,  etc."  Which  plea  of 
Bonner,  says  Canon  Estcourt,  seems  to  have  caused  no 
little  alarm  and  excitement  among  the  Anglican  party  ; 
and  Randolph  wrote  from  Edinburgh  to  Cecil,  March 
30th,  1565  :  "  The  tale  is,  that  Bonner  in  his  defence  at 
his  arraignment  said  that  there  was  never  a  lawful 
bishop  in  England,  which  so  astonished  a  great  number 
of  the  best  learned,  that  yet  they  knew  not  what 
answer  to  give  him  ;  and  when  it  was  determined  he 
should  have  suffered,  he  is  remitted  to  the  place  from 
whence  he  came,  and  no  more  said  to  him."  "  Bonner's 
objections,"  says  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  "were  both 
statutable  and  canonical.  He  denied  Horn's  right  to 
administer  the  oath,  because  Horn  had  been  conse- 
crated by  a  form  not  legally  established,  and  by  a 
metropolitan  who  was  himself  no  bishop.  And  this 
latter  assertion  he  defended  on  these  two  grounds: 
first,  Parker  was  consecrated  by  King  Edward's  ordinal ; 
and  secondly,  that  Parker's  consecrators  were  both 
legally  and  canonically  disqualified  from  officiating  at 
that  consecration,  being  deprived  of  their  benefices." 
We  call  attention  then,  again,  to  the  glaring  reckless- 


82  THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

ness  of  assertion,  insincerity  or  ignorance,  whichever 
it  may  be,  manifested  by  those  maintaining  that  "  no 
imaginable  flaw  could  be  found  in  the  title  of  the 
Anglican  bishops,  that  their  rights  as  bishops  were  un- 
challenged, that  the  law  requiring  the  consecration  of 
bishops  to  be  absolutely  conformed  to  the  Anglican 
Ordinal,  and  the  fact  that  in  perpetuating  the  Anglican 
succession,  nothing  was  done  in  a  corner,  rendered  the 
succession  in  the  Church  of  England  more  demonstra- 
bly canonical  and  regular,  in  all  particulars,  than  any 
other  succession  in  Christendom."  This  is  indeed 
amusing;  and  we  cannot  help  applying  to  these  writers 
what  Dr.  Champney  says  of  Mr.  Mason :  "  He  doth 
well  to  be  bold  in  affirming,  for  a  good  face  sometimes 
helpeth  out  an  ill  game." 

But  we  are  quite  willing  to  take  the  Register  from 
Mr.  Mason's  hands,  and  still  maintain  that  it  is  not  an 
original,  trustworthy,  truthful,  contemporaneous  record 
of  Parker's  consecration.  For  proof  of  this,  we  refer  to 
Canon  Estcourt's  valuable  treatise  on  "  Anglican 
Ordinations,"  which  we  recommend  particularly  to 
those  liable  to  be  imposed  on  by  our  Buffalo  defender 
of  Anglican  orders,  or  his  implicitly  trusted  authorities, 
Courayer,  Mason,  Haddan  and  Lee. 

We  now  proceed  to  give  a  brief  statement  of  the  opin- 
ions of  Catholic  writers,  who  admit  the  consecration  of 
Parker,  by  Barlow  &  Qo.,  and  the  Register  as  genuine,  if 
you  will,  though  evidently  not  the  original  record,  truth- 
fully detailing  the  transaction,  but  a  document  framed 
and  cunningly  devised  for  a  purpose,  to  meet  an  exi- 
gency, to  forestall  anticipated  difficulties,  and  answer 
Catholic  objections.  This  short  historical  view  may  per- 
haps throw  light  on  some  of  the  most  salient  points  of 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


83 


the  controversy,  and  show  how  little  comfort  the  de- 
fenders of  Anglican  orders  can  derive  from  the  most 
favorable  view  of  the  question,  and  the  most  liberal 
interpretation  of  disputed  records.  The  Princess 
Elizabeth  was  proclaimed  Queen  of  England,  Novem- 
ber 17th,  1558.  January  14th  was  fixed  for  her  corona- 
tion, but  Heath,  the  archbishop  of  York,  and  all  the 
Catholic  bishops  refused  to  crown  her,  or  lend  the 
sanction  of  their  presence  to  the  ceremony,  "until 
with  much  ado  they  obtained  the  bishop  of  Carlisle 
(Oglethorpe),  the  inferior  almost  of  all  the  rest,  to  do 
that  ceremony."  (Allen's  answer  to  English  justice.) 
In  the  same  year,  1559,  the  first  of  Elizabeth,  all  the 
bishops  of  the  realm  in  convocation  declared,  "  The 
supreme  power  of  feeding  and  governing  the  militant 
Church  of  Christ  is  given  to  Peter,  the  Apostle,  and 
to  his  lawful  successors  in  the  See  Apostolic,  as  unto 
the  vicars  of  Christ"  (Heylin)  ;  and  all  except  Llandaff 
refused  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy :  "  Only  one 
bishop  conformed  himself  to  the  queen's  commands, 
and  was  continued  in  his  place,  viz. :  Anthony  Kitchen, 
alias  Dunstan,  of  Llandaff"  (Fuller) ;  and  before  the 
end  of  the  same  year  they  were  all  deprived.  (Dodd.) 
Elizabeth  and  her  advisers  are  not  blind  to  the  exigency 
of  the  occasion.  A  hierarchy  obsequious  to  the  queen 
and  favorable  to  the  new  doctrines  must  be  created. 
Matthew  Parker,  a  priest,  who  had  been  chaplain  to 
Anne  Boleyn,  the  queen's  mother,  and  was  on  terms 
of  intimacy  with  her  chief  advisers,  Cecil  and  Bacon, 
and  who — notwithstanding  his  priestly  vow  of  celibacy, 
in  violation  of  the  law  of  God  and  of  the  realm, 
"  that  priests,  after  the  order  of  priesthood,  as  afore, 
may  not  marry  Jay  law  of  God"  (31  Hen.  viii.  cap.  14), 


84 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


and  before  the  act  (2  and  3  Ed.  vi.  c.  21)  legalizing  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy — had  taken  to  himself  a  wife, 
was  selected  by  Elizabeth  to  be  her  first  bishop.  The 
vacant  archiepiscopal  see  of  Canterbury  was  offered  to 
him,  and  a  peremptory  order  from  the  queen  decided 
his  acceptance  of  the  proffered,  but  not  coveted  dig- 
nity, and  brought  him  to  London  in  the  beginning  of 
June,  1559.  Although  cathedral  chapters  had  been 
deprived  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  of  the  right  to 
elect  their  bishops,  and  the  right  of  appointment  of 
-the  same  had  been  vested  exclusively  in  the  king, 
"  from  henceforth  no  conge  dTelire,  shall  be  granted, 
nor  election  of  any  archbishop  or  bishop  by  the  dean  or 
chapter  made"  (1  Ed.  vi.  c.  2),  a  conge  d'elire,  is  said 
to  have  been  issued  to  the  chapter  of  Canterbury, 
July  1 8th,  of  the  same  year.  There  was  one  vacancy 
in  the  chapter,  and  of  the  eleven  prebendaries,  only 
four,  with  Dean  Nicholas  Walton,  answered  the  citation 
and  put  in  an  appearance.  The  election  was  by  way 
of  compromise  left  with  the  dean,  whose  choice,  as 
was  fully  understood,  was  the  choice  or  nominee  of  the 
queen. 

This  singular  conge  d'elire  and  election  by  the  chapter 
were  deemed  sufficient  for  Parker  to  assume  the  epis- 
copal style  and  title,  which  he  does  in  a  letter  to  the 
council,  dated  August  27th,  1559.  From  this  date  until 
the  17th  of  December,  the  date  assigned  in  the  Register 
for  his  consecration,  there  is  great  confusion  and  even 
contradiction  in  the  official  documents.  In  some,  the 
full  title  of  bishop  is  given  to  him,  in  others  he  is  des- 
ignated bishop  "  elect."  A  commission  dated  October 
20th,  is  addressed  to  Parker,  Grindal  and  Coxe  with  their 
full  titles  as  bishops,  and  on   the  26th  of  the  same 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER.  85 

month,  October,  we  find  among  the  State  papers  an 
official  document  issued  by  the  queen,  asserting  that, 
"The  archbishop  elect  of  Canterbury,  and  the  other 
elect  bishops  of  London,  Ely,  Hereford  and  Chichester 
remain  unconsecrated."  If  any  weight  is  attached  to 
this  document,  then  Scorey  and  Barlow,  the  elect  of 
Hereford  and  Chichester,  are  on  26th  of  Ooctober,  1559, 
unconsecrated.  Yet  we  know  that  Barlow  was  bishop 
elect  of  St.  Asaph's  and  St.  David's  in  Henry's  reign, 
and  afterwards  of  Bath  and  Wells,  though  there  is 
strong  reason  to  doubt  that  he  was  ever  consecrated, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel,  and  Scorey  was  conse- 
crated by  Cranmeraccordingto  King  Edward's  Ordinal, 
and  unlawfully  thrust  into  the  see  of  Chichester,  from 
which  Bishop  Day  had  been  deposed,  because  he  re- 
fused to  exchange  the  altar  for  the  communion  table, 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  for  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  it 
be  by  mistake  that  Parker  gets  at  one  time  his  full 
title  of  bishop,  and  afterwards  is  styled  archbishop 
"elect,"  and  declared  to  be  unconsecrated,  and  if,  as 
Canon  Estcourt  is  willing  to  allow,  it  be  by  a  clerical 
error  that  Scorey,  whose  register  of  consecration  is  ex- 
tant, is  put  on  the  same  footing  with  Parker,  Grindal 
and  Coxe,  who  are  certainly  unconsecrated,  and  Barlow, 
of  whose,  consecration  there  is  great  reason  to  doubt, 
we  at  least  are  justified  in  concluding  that  the  public 
records  of  England  were  not  so  carefully  kept,  and  so 
trustworthy,  as  some  would  have  us  believe.  But  to 
proceed. 

The  so-called  election  of  Parker  by  Dean  Walton 
occurred  on  the  1st  of  August,  and  "on  the  9th  of 
September,  the  great  seal  was  put  to  a  warrant  for  his 
consecration,   directed    to   the    bishops   of    Duresme 


86  THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

(Tonstall),  Bath  and  Wells  (Bourne),  Peterborough 
(Pole),  Llandaff  (Kitchen),  and  to  Barlow  and  Scorey 
(styled  only  bishops,  not  being  then  elected  to  any 
sees),  requiring  them  to  consecrate  him."  (Bennet.) 
This  commission  failed,  most  probably  because  the 
Catholic  prelates,  "who,"  as  Sir  Mackintosh  in  his  "  His- 
tory ot  England"  owns,  "must  have  considered  such  an 
act  a  profanation,  conscientiously  refused  ;"  just  as  the 
Catholic  prebendaries  of  the  chapter  of  Canterbury 
had  refused  to  take  part  in  his  election.  We  are  cer- 
tainly justified  in  believing  Mackintosh,  that  the 
Catholic  prelates  refused,  through  conscientious 
motives,  to  unite  with  such  men  as  Barlow  and  Scorey. 
apostates  from  the  faith  and  their  religious  vows,  in 
consecrating  Parker,  who  himself  had  broken  his  priestly 
vow  of  celibacy,  and  joined  the  so-called  reformed 
party,  and  who,  irregularly  elected,  at  the  bidding  of 
the  queen,  had  been  forced  into  the  episcopal  dignity 
by  the  civil  ruler,  and  secular  power,  in  contravention 
of  canon  law,  in  defiance  of  all  the  spiritual  authority 
and  ecclesiastical  powers,  as  well  of  the  universal 
Church,  as  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  had  been 
named  a  bishop  despite  the  Pope,  despite  the  patriarch, 
despite  the  metropolitan,  despite  all  the  laws  and  tra- 
ditions of  the  Church  hitherto  held  sacred.  Our  be- 
lief is  strengthened  when  we  find  three  of  these 
four  Catholic  prelates  suffering  the  penalty  of  their 
non-compliance  with  the  royal  wishes  in  the  depriva- 
tion of  their  sees — Tonstall  before  the  16th  of  the 
same  month  of  September,  Pole  before  the  nth  of 
November,  and  Bourne,  on  his  refusal  to  take  the  oath, 
tendered  by  a  commission  issued  October  18th. 

Yet,  a  hierarchy  must  be  created  for  the  royal  foun- 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


8/ 


elation,  the  new  or  reformed  Church ;  Elizabeth  must 
have  bishops,  Parker  must  be  consecrated.  The  bish- 
ops refuse  to  consecrate  him,  and  they  are  all,  save 
one,  in  consequence  deprived  of  their  sees.  The  law 
requires  (25  Henry,  viii.)  for  the  confirmation  and  con- 
secration of  an  archbishop,  another  archbishop,  or  four 
bishops  within  the  king  s  dominions.  Now,  there  is  no 
archbishop,  and  only  one  bishop,  who  answers  the  de- 
scription of  a  bishop  within  the  realm.  Cecil,  the  chief 
adviser  of  the  queen,  is  sorely  puzzled,  and  in  a  mar- 
ginal note  in  his  own  handwriting  to  a  state  paper  de 
tailing  the  legal  steps  to  be  taken  for  Parker's  conse- 
cration, he  states:  "There  is  no  archbishop  nor  I1II. 
bishops  now  to  be  had.  Whereupon,  Querendum."  Ac- 
cordingly eminent  canonists,  four  clergymen,  and  two 
civilians  arc  consulted,  and  in  accordance  with  their 
advice  a  second  commission  is  issued,  dated  December 
6th,  "  to  the  bishop  of  Llandaff  ;  Barlow,  bishop  elect 
of  Chichester  ;  Scorey,  bishop  elect  of  Hereford  ;  Cover- 
dale,  late  bishop  of  Exeter.  Hodgkins,  bishop  suffragan 
of  Bedford;  John,  suffragan  of  Witford  ;  and  Bale, 
bishop  of  Ossory  ;  that  they,  or  any  four  of  them, 
should  consecrate  him."  We  may  well  repeat  with  the 
historian  Mackintosh:  "Whoever  considers  it  import- 
ant to  examine  the  above  list,  will  perceive  the  per-' 
plexities  in  which  the  English  Church  was  involved  by 
a  zeal  to  preserve  unbrokeji  the  chain  of  Apostolical 
succession."  That  the  perplexities  were  grave,  indeed, 
may  be  inferred  not  only  from  the  inspection  of  the 
names  and  doubtful  character  of  those  mentioned  in 
the  commission,  but  also  from  the  unusual  and  very 
strange  clause  inserted  by  these  canonists,  in  this  com- 
mission, with  which  they  asserted,  it  could  be  lawfully 


88  THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

acted  on.  By  this  clause  the  queen,  by  her  supreme 
authority,  dispenses  with  all  disabilities,  and  supplies 
all  irregularities  and  deficiencies  in  any  of  the  persons 
to  whom  it  is  addressed,  arising  from  "  their  condition, 
state  or  powers,  from  the  laws  of  the  Church,  or  the 
statutes  of  the  realm,  the  urgency  of  the  time  and  the 
necessity  of  circumstances  requiring  it."  Here  indeed 
is  a  stretch  of  the  royal  supremacy  and  spiritual  pre- 
rogatives of  the  crown,  but  the  exigency  of  the  time  de- 
manded it.  Parker  must  be  consecrated  ;  a  new  re- 
formed hierarchy  must  be  created ;  even  though  the 
parties  had  no  canonical  rights,  jurisdiction  or  faculties 
to  consecrate  a  bishop,  Elizabeth  surely  can  and  does 
supply  the  want  ;  though  they  may  not  possess  the 
condition  of  bishops  within  the  realm  required  by  the 
law,  the  queen  can  dispense  with  that,  nay,  even  if  not 
bishops  at  all,  the  royal  prerogative  can  supply  the 
want  of  the  episcopal  character  and  ecclesiastical  state; 
in  fine,  no  laws  of  the  Church  or  statutes  of  the  realm 
must  be  a  bar  to  the  execution  of  the  wishes  of  the 
queen,  to  the  establishment  of  an  Anglican  episcopate,  to 
the  consecration  of  Parker,  and  the  last  forlorn  hope 
is  ordered  out  at  this  most  critical  juncture  to  save  the 
imperilled  hierarchy  of  the  Anglican  establishment. 
Yet  strange,  though  thus  armed  and  fortified  by. these 
extraordinary  royal  powers,  Kitchen,  the  only  bishop 
exercising  jurisdiction  and  answering  to  the  description 
of  a  bishop  within  the  queen's  realms,  and  Bale  of 
Ossory,  and  the  suffragan  Telford,  ''either  hindered 
by  sickness,"  says  the  Protestant  historian  Heylin,  "or 
by  some  other  lawful  impediment,  were  not  in  a  con- 
dition to  attend  the  service." 

Verily,  perplexing  difficulties   thicken  around  poor 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


89 


Parker's  path  to  the  episcopacy,  unlooked-for  obstacles 
obstruct  his  way  to  Canterbury.  The  Fates,  it  would 
seem,  oppose  his  elevation  to  a  see  rendered  illustri- 
ous by  a  line  of  saintly  prelates.  However,  she  "  of 
the  iron  hand  and  iron  maw"  is  not  to  be  foiled  ;  she 
has  made  up  her  mind  to  establish  prelacy ;  that  the 
Church  of  England  as  by  law,  by  queen  and  Parliament 
established,  may  have  prelates,  her  iron  will  is  deter- 
mined to  place  Parker  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  and 
through  him  fill  the  other  sees,  which  her  despotic  will 
had  made  vacant.  As  Kitchen  a  second  time  refused 
to  become  accessory  to  the  crime  and  sacrilege  of  con- 
secrating a  bishop  without  canonical  warrant  or  ec- 
clesiastical authority,  Barlow,  the  next  mentioned  on 
the  commission,  with  his  worthy  compeers,  Scorey, 
Coverdale  and  Hodgkins,  are  said  to  have  assembled 
at  the  church  of  St.  Mary-le-bone  on  the  9th  of  De- 
cember, to  confirm  Parker's  election,  and  on  Sunday, 
17th  December,  in  the  chapel  of  Lambeth  house,  to  have 
gone  through  the  ceremony  of  his  consecration  accord- 
ing to  the  ordinal  of  Edward  VI.,  the  service  begin- 
ning "about  five  or  six  o'clock  in  the  morning."  This 
is  the  testimony  of  the  Register,  and  as  to  its  authen- 
ticity and  the  collateral  proofs  and  authorities  adduced 
in  its  support,  we  need  say  no  more,  though,  as  Mr. 
Waterworth  remarks  :  "they  appeared  about  the  time 
that  the  forgery  of  documents  is  said  to  have  been  so 
prevalent  as  to  be  made  a  source  of  fiscal  gain.  Pardons 
were  issued  at  a  small  charge  and  ran  thus:  '  Pcrdon- 
amus  falsas  fabrication^  cJiartaruw,  scn'ptoriD/i  mon- 
umentorum,  ac  pv.blicationcs  corum!  "  Though,  then, 
with  the  American  editor  of  Waterworth's  lectures,  we 
feel  it  to  be  "certainly  somewhat  perplexing,  that  the 


go  THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 

commission  dated  December  6th,  1559,  in  consequence 
of  which  the  consecration  of  December  17th  took  place, 
should  have  no  mark  by  which  Rymer  could  distin- 
guish it  from  a  spurious  document,"  we  must  again 
remind  our  readers  that  this  is  a  subject  which  they 
must  examine  and  decide  for  themselves  'on  its  own 
merits,  and  the  documentary  evidence  adduced.  Canon 
Estcourt  hesitates  not  to  say  :  "  We  may  indeed  believe 
the  alleged  facts — viz.,  of  the  ceremony  having  taken 
place  at  Lambeth  on  the  17th  of  December;  of  Parker 
and  the  other  persons  named  having  taken  their 
several  parts  in  it,  and  of  the  Rite  in  the  book  of  1552 
having  been  followed,  except  in  one  particular— to  be 
as  certain  as  any  other  facts  in  English  history.  But 
this  belief  will  not  lead  us  to  accept  the  existing 
Register  as  an  authentic  and  contemporaneous  record 
of  the  facts  as  they  occurred.  On  the  contrary,  there 
are  circumstances  of  considerable  suspicion  attached 
to  it."  Again  he  says:  "  The  other  copies  which  are 
constantly  referred  to  as  evidence  in  support  of  the 
Register,  so  far  from  adding  to  its  credit,  rather  de- 
tract from  it."  He  then  points  out  the  discrepancies 
between  the  Register  and  the  two  principal  documents, 
usually  styled  copies  or  transcripts  of  the  Register, 
but  which  are  rather  original  drafts,  viz.,  that  of  the 
State  Paper  Office,  and  that  kept  in  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge,  and  which  is  said  have  been  given 
to  the  college  by  Parker  himself.  The  learned  canon 
proves  that  "  the  Register  as  it  stands  is  a  remark- 
able departure  from  the  usual  form,"  and  whilst  at- 
testing that  Edward's  ordinal  was  used,  records  an  im- 
portant deviation  from  its  prescription. 

He  refers  to  an  important  document  among  Foxe's 


THE  LAMBETH  REGISTER. 


9* 


MSS.  in  the  British  Museum,  and  placing  it  side  by 
side  in  parallel  columns  with  Parker's  Register,  asserts : 
"This  MS.  to  be  in  the  writing  of  a  contemporary,  and 
not  an  unfriendly  hand,  and  preserved  among  contem- 
porary papers,  of  which  a  part  is  taken  exactly  from 
the  Register  as  it  stands,  and  another  part  is  widely 
different."  How  he  accounts  for  this  difference  we 
shall  see  presently,  when  we  speak  of  Barlow,  whom  it 
seems  the  early  Anglicans  were  ashamed  to  acknowl- 
edge as  the  consecrator  of  their  first  archbishop,  the  root 
and  stem  of  the  Anglican  hierarchy.  In  fact,  as  we 
said  before,  it  is  very  doubtful  that  Barlow  himself  was 
ever  consecrated,  was  ever  anything  more  than  bishop 
"  elect,"  and  even  if  the  defender  of  Anglican  succession 
could  have  an  absolute  certainty — which  after  what  we 
have  said  he  cannot  have — of  Parker's  consecration  and 
of  the  authenticity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Lambeth 
Register,  the  validity  of  the  consecration  would  still  be 
doubtful. 


92 


WA  S  BARLOW  £  VER  CONSECRA  TED  BISHOP  ? 


VII. 

WAS   BARLOW   EVER    CONSECRATED   BISHOP? 

TO  be  certain  of  the  validity  of  Parker's  consecra- 
tion, we  must  have  an  absolute  certainty  of  Bar- 
low's episcopal  character.  We  propose  now  to  show 
that  his  friends  have  not  cleared  up  the  doubts  thrown 
around  Barlow's  consecration,  and  that  no  positive,  con- 
clusive proofs  thereof  can  be  adduced.  "All  are 
agreed,"  says  Dr.  Kenrick,  "  that  Barlow's  consecration 
cannot  be  established  by  positive  evidence,  and  may,  at 
most,  be  inferred  from  the  circumstances  of  his  history. 
In  other  words,  the  fact  is  not  certain ;  but  according 
to  the  most  sanguine  advocates  of  English  orders 
highly  probable."  We  asserted  in  our  lecture,  "  Even 
if  the  Lambeth  Register  be  genuine,  and  if  the  conse- 
cration took  place,  as  asserted,  at  the  hands  of  Barlow, 
an  apostate  monk,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  Barlow 
himself  was  ever  consecrated,  or  ever  anything  more 
than  a  bishop  elect."  In  reply  to  which  Dr.  Lingard  is 
cited  as  testifying  the  direct  reverse,  thus:  "  Is  there 
any  positive  proof  that  he  (Barlow)  was  no  bishop? 
None  in  the  world.  Why  should  we  doubt  the  conse- 
cration of  Barlow  and  not  that  of  Gardiner?  I  fear 
that  the  only  reason  is  this :  Gardiner  did  not  conse- 
crate Parker,  but  Barlow  did."  This  is  put  down  as 
directly  the  reverse  of  what  wc  affirmed,  yet  we  never 
asserted  or  pretended  that  there  was  any  positive  proof 


WA S  BARLO  W  £  VER  CONSECRA  TED  BISHOP ! 


93 


that  he  was  no  bishop.  What  we  asserted,  and  reassert 
is,  that  there  is  no  positive  proof  that  he  was  a  bishop, 
or  anything  more  than  a  bishop  elect.  This  is  all  that 
is  necessary  for  our  thesis,  that  his  consecration  is 
doubtful ;  doubtful,  then,  too,  is  the  validity  of  Parker's 
consecration,  and  consequently,  there  can  be  no  abso- 
lute certainty  of  the  transmission,  not  only  of  legiti- 
mate succession,  but  even  of  valid  orders  through  the 
Anglican  episcopate,  or  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  It  is  then  not 
only  rash,  but  a  mockery  of  truth,  and  an  insult  to  an 
intelligent  public  to  aver  and  publish  that,  "  Succes- 
sion in  the  Church  of  England  is  more  demonstrably 
canonical  and  regular,  in  all  particulars,  than -any  other 
succession  in  Christendom,"  and — we  reluctantly  re- 
peat what  must  grate  so  harshly  on  Christian  ears — 
"  the  canon  of  Scripture  rests  on  no  evidence  more 
explicit."  This  putting  of  the  succession  in  the 
Church  of  England  on  the  same  footing  with  holy 
Scripture,  or  comparing  and  identi/ying  the  evidence 
on  which  both  rest,  strikes  us  as  grossly  irreverent  to 
God's  Holy  Word,  and  as  an  unintentional  indeed,  but 
most  unkind  and  dangerous  thrust  at  the  authenticity, 
and  unimpeachable,  absolutely  certain,  and  infallible 
authority  of  the  inspired  Scriptures.  We  are  quite 
willing  to  accept  the  following  test  of  legitimate  suc- 
cession and  share  in  the  corporate  witness,  and  apply- 
ing it  to  Barlow  and  Parker  we  find  them  wanting. 
"In  any  given  case,"  says  our  Episcopalian  divine,  "a 
bishop  must  be  able  to  prove  his  own  succession  by 
the  highest  moral  evidence.  In  doing  this  he  must 
show  that  his  consecrators  derived  their  episcopal  order 
from  some  ancient  Apostolic  line.     If  he  can  do  this 


94 


WA  S  BAKLO  W  £  VER  CON  SEC R  A  TED  BISHOP? 


by  undoubted  registers,  known  and  read  of  all  men 
like  other  legal  documents,  by  which  the  succession  is 
carried  up  to  a  period  antecedent  to  modern  contro- 
versy," etc. 

Now,  let  Barlow  or  Parker  prove  by  undoubted 
registers,  known  and  read  of  all  men,  that  his  consecra- 
tors  derived  their  episcopal  order  from  some  ancient 
Apostolic  line.  We  challenge  our  Buffalo  divine  to  apply 
this  test  in  Barlow's  case.  He  knows  well  that  this  would 
be  fatal  to  Barlow's  claims  to  a  share  in  the  corporate 
witness  or  the  episcopal  character,  and  yet  he  attempts 
to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  public  by  boldly  set- 
ting forth  what  every  Catholic  would  acknowledge  as 
full  and  ample  evidence  of  a  legitimate  title,  and  thus 
unfairly  insinuating,  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  that 
the  title  of  the  first  archbishop  and  his  consecrator 
rests  on  such  evidence.  Again,  Dr.  Lingard  asks : 
"  Why  should  we  doubt  the  consecration  of  Barlow 
and  not  of  Gardiner?"  We  answer,  first,  because 
Gardiner's  consecration  was  never  questioned,  whereas 
that  of  Barlow  was  openly  doubted,  and  denied ;  and 
secondly,  because  in  Gardiner's  case,  and  in  every 
other  case,  but  Barlow's,  where  the  register  of  a  dio- 
cesan bishop  is  wanting,  collateral  evidence  of  the 
consecration  is  supplied,  as  Professor  Stubs  shows  in 
his  "  Registrum  Anglicanum,"  from  the  diocesan 
registers,  from  Rymer,  or  elsewhere.  But  in  Barlow's 
case,  there  is  no  such  collateral  evidence,  either  from 
diocesan  record,  from  the  calendars  of  the  Church 
books  in  which  the  dates  of  the  entrance  and  death  of 
successive  bishops  were  kept,  or  from  chapter  books, 
for  none  of  these,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  are  to  be 
found  at  St.  David's.     Dr.  Lingard  says  again,  "  I  fear 


WAS  B Ah' LOW  EVER  CONSECRA  TED  BISHOP? 


95 


that  the  only  reason  (for  denying  Barlow's  and  not 
Gardiner's  consecration)  is  this:  Gardiner  did  not 
consecrate  Parker,  but  Barlow  did."  This  is  no  doubt 
partially  true,  for  whether  Gardiner  or  Cardinal  Pole, 
or  "  the  other  bishops,"  as  Dr.  Kenrick  justly  remarks, 
"  whose  record  of  consecration  no  longer  appears, 
were,  or  were  not,  consecrated  is  a  matter  of  compara- 
tively minor  importance  ;  but  it  is  of  most  serious  im- 
portance for  the  Anglicans  to  establish,  by  positive 
proof,  that  the  man  through  whom  they  claim  orders, 
had  himself  received  them."  It  is  no  doubt,  then-,  true 
that  Catholics  weighed  and  examined  so  carefully  the 
question  of  Barlow's  consecration,  and  not  finding  suffi- 
cient vouchers  or  positive  proofs  thereof,  denied  the 
same,  because  on  Barlow,  as  Mr.  Ward  declares,  "  must 
be  built  as  on  a  foundation,  the  whole  episcopacy  and 
priesthood  of  the  Church  of  England."  Our  Buffalo 
divine  will  of  course  demur  to  this,  for  he  says:  "  It 
must  be  remembered  that  it  is  of  no  real  consequence 
whether  Barlow  was  or  was  not  a  bishop,  as  he  was 
only  one  of  four  bishops,  who  laid  hands,  all  pronounc- 
ing together  the  formula  of  ordination."  Of  the 
worth  and  theological  soundness  of  this  opinion  we 
will  speak  hereafter,  but  we  really  do  not  blame  Angli- 
cans for  being  reluctant  to  own  Barlow  as  the  father 
of  their  hierarchy,  or  the  laying  on  of  his  soiled  hands 
the  means  of  communicating  the  ecclesiastical  spirit 
and  Apostolical  commission  to  their  Church.  "  Of  all 
the  bishops,"  says  an  Anglican  writer,  "  who  were 
created  from  the  date  of  1533  to  the  end  of  Edward 
VI. 's  reign,  Barlow  is  perhaps  entitled  to  the  palm 
for  abject  servility.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  mere 
weathercock,  changing  perpetually.     He  was  retained 


q6       WA  S  BAA' 1, 0 IV  E  VER  CONSECKA  TED  BISHOP  f 

in  the  service  of  Anne  Boleyn  as  early  as  1530,  and  was 
soon  employed  as  an  agent  whom  she,  the  king,  and 
Cromwell,  might  be  sure  of  to  do  their  pleasure.  He 
had  de  facto  contracted  a  marriage  in  spite  of  his  pro- 
fessiu.i  as  a  religious."  On  the  accession  of  Queen 
Mary  he  made  a  submission  which  was  equivalent  to  a 
recantation,  resigned  his  see,  or  was  deprived,  and  fled 
into  Germany.  His  sentiments  regarding  the  neces- 
sity of  episcopal  consecration  we  Jiave  already  recited, 
but  not  only  on  this  subject  were  his  sentiments  lax 
and  his  expressions  profane,  but  he  was  regarded  by 
his  contemporaries  as  a  clerical  buffoon  and  scoffer  at 
holy  things.  Returning  to  England  on  Elizabeth's 
accession  he  was  by  her  named  to  the  see  of 
Chichester. 

It  was  whilst  thus  only  bishop  elect  of  Chichester, 
without  any  jurisdiction,  he  is  said  to  have  consecrated 
Parker  on  the  17th  of  December,  and  on  the  very  next 
day  he  himself  is  confirmed  and  obtains  episcopal 
jurisdiction  from  the  hands  of  his  grateful,  new-born 
child,  Matthew  Parker,  the  episcopal  fledgling  of  a  day 
old,  whom  he  presented  the  day  before  to  Elizabeth 
and  the  English  Church  as  the  first  fruit  of  the  queen's 
supremacy,  the  first  begotten  of  a  new  race  of  bishops, 
the  first  link  of  a  new  chain  of  corporate  witnesses. 
Verily,'  the  succession  in  the  Church  of  England  is  the 
most  demonstrably  canonical  and  regular  in  all  Christen- 
dom !  Still  his  own  personal  umvorthiness.  moral  deg- 
radation, uncanonical  conduct,  and  lack  of  jurisdiction 
would  not  invalidate,  though  they  would  render  illegiti- 
mate and  irregular  his  conferring  of  orders,  if  he  were 
himself  a  validly  consecrated  bishop,  and  with  a  proper 
intention  used  a  valid  form.     Was  then  Barlow  a  con- 


IV A  S  BARLOW  E  VER  CONSE  CRA  TED  B I  SB  OP  ?      gy 

secrated  bishop?  Buffalo's  divine  says  he  was  :  "  Bar- 
low was  consecrated  bishop  of  St.  David's  in  the  28th 
year  of  Henry  VIII."  But  would  not  the  gentleman 
be  kind  enough  to  give  us  the  date  more  precisely,  the 
day  and  the  month  ?  It  would  save  us  a  world  of  trouble 
searching  through  historic  records  and  dusty  folios  ;  be- 
sides it  would  be  so  satisfactory  and  withal  so  con- 
vincing. Would  he  not,  too,  condescend  to  tell  us 
where  he  was  consecrated,  and  who  were  his  consecrat- 
ors?  these  are  the  tests  which  he  himself — waiving,  of 
course,  the  undoubted  registers,  which  cannot  be  had 
— demands  of  every  bishop  in  order  to  prove  his  epis- 
copal character.  But  no,  he  will  deign  no  reply ; 
but  simply  affirms  Barlow  was  consecrated  in  the  28th 
year  of  Henry  VIII.  That  must  suffice;  his  ipse  dixit 
settles  the  question.  As,  then,  he  will  not  condescend 
to  gratify  our  now  awakened  curiosity,  or  try  to  satisfy 
incredulous  and  inquiring  minds,  we  must  turn  to 
others,  we  must  prosecute  our  inquiries  regarding 
Barlow's  consecration  elsewhere,  in  the  pages  of  English 
history,  and  in  doing  so,  we  find  that  we  have  to  tread 
our  way  through  a  mass  of  conflicting  authorities  and 
contradictory  statements. 

At  the  outset  we  find  that  Courayer,  the  most  earnest 
advocate  of  the  validity  of  English  orders,  contradicts 
our  friend,  for  he  says,  Barlow  was  confirmed  by 
proxy,  bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  on  the  23rd  of  February, 
1535,  and  most  probably  consecrated  in  the  country,  by 
virtue  of  the  archbishop's  commission  :  "We  know  for 
certain  that  he  was  confirmed,  and  as  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose,  also  consecrated,  yet  nothing  further  appears 
with  regard  to  the  see  of  St.  Asaph."  This  again  is 
contradicted  by  a  royal  act,  dated  May    29th,    1536, 


gg        WA  S  BA  RL  01V  El  'EK  COA'SE  CRA  TED  BISHOP  ? 

allowing  the  chapter  of  St.  Asaph  to  proceed  to  fill 
the  see  made  vacant,  "  by  the  voluntary  exchange  of 
William  Barlow,  the  last  bishop  elect  of  that  place." 
This  also  is  confirmed  by  a  document  found  in  an 
appendix  to  Courayer,  in  which  it  is  said  that,  "  Barlow 
was  one  of  the  only  three  bishops  translated  to  new 
sees  within  the  last  two  hundred  years,  without  having 
been  consecrated  for  those  to  which  they  were  first 
elected."  According  to  Godwin,  he  was  consecrated  on 
the  22d  of  February,  1535,  whilst  Wharton,  in  his 
"  Fasti  Ecclesise  Anglicanae,"  places  his  confirmation, 
which  naturally  precedes  consecration,  on  the  23d  of 
Februarv'j  1535.  A  mandate  of  King  Henry  to  Cran- 
mer,  dated  22d  of  February,  1636,  empowers  him  to 
proceed  to  the  consecration  of  Barlow,  though  accord- 
ing to  Strype,  he  was  confirmed  the  15th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1535,  and  of  course  the  ceremony  of  confirmation 
could  not  take  place  until  the  royal  mandate  for  his 
consecration  had  been  issued.  "All  these  contradic- 
tions," as  Dr.  Kenrick,  from  whom  we  have  condensed 
these  facts,  remarks,  "  are'  evidence  that  nothing  cer- 
tain is  known  of  the  period  of  Barlow's  consecration." 
Canon  Estcourt,  from  data  furnished  mainly  by  Mr. 
Haddon,  makes  it,  if  not  certain,  at  least  most  prob- 
able, thit  Barlow  resigned  the  see  of  St.  Asaph  be- 
fore he  was  consecrated,  and  was  elected  bishop  of  St. 
David's  on  the  10th  of  April,  1535-6,  and  took  posses- 
sion of  that  see  in  person  on  the  1st  of  May.  He  also 
shows  from  authentic  original  documents  that  he  was 
styled  on  the  12th  of  June,  "  the  bishop  elect  of  St. 
Asaph,  now  elect  of  St.  Davyes,"  and  on  the  30th,  in 
pursuance  of  a  writ  of  summons  issued  on  the  27th  of 
April,  in  consequence  of  an  exceptional  and  extraor- 


IV A  S  BA  RL  OWE  VEK  CON  SEC R  A  TED  BISHOP  ?      go 

dinary  grant  of  the  custody  of  temporalities  made  to 
him,  not  to  "  the  said  elect  and  confirmed,"  the  usual 
form,  but  to  "  the  same  now  bishop  for  his  life,"  he  as- 
sumed the  style  and  title  of  bishop,  and  took  his  seat 
in  the  House  of  Lords.  Referring  our  readers,  who 
may  wish  to  study  this  question  more  thoroughly,  to 
Canon  Estcourt's  most  valuable  work  on,  '■'Anglican 
Ordinations,"  we  will  now  with  the  learned  canon  sum 
up  Barlow's  case.  "All  the  a  priori  arguments  used  by 
Bramhall  and  Elrington,  such  as  the  praemunire,  the 
grant  of  temporalities,  the  seat  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
are  shown  to  be  either  groundless  or  contrary  to  the  fact ; 
all  the  dates  assigned  for  his  consecration,  viz.,  the 
22d  of  February  by  Godwin,  the  23d  of  April  by 
Dr.  Lee,  and  the  nth  of  June  by  Mr.  Haddon,  are  con- 
tradicted by  the  testimony  of  records — and  the  whole 
time  left  for  him  to  be  consecrated  in  is  reduced  to  a 
period  of  nineteen  days,  viz.,  between  the  12th  and 
30th  of  June,  exclusive. 

The  author  shows  that  Mason  gave  a  wrong  refer- 
ence to  the  record  attesting  the  extraordinary  grant 
of  temporalities,  and  this  fact  does  not  enhance  our 
opinion  of  Mason's  honesty  nor  increase  our  confidence 
in  registers,  which  it  would  be  to  his  interest  to  tam- 
per with  and  falsify.  "An  error  in  the  reference  would 
be  of  little  consequence  if  he  had  given  a  correct  de- 
scription of  the  document,  or  if  he  printed  it  so  as  to 
show  its  real  nature  and  operation,  instead  of  passing 
it  off  as  the  restitution  usually  made  to  a  bishop  after 
consecration,  and  printing  only  so  much  as  would  not 
betray  the  deception  he  was  practising."  In  the  docu- 
ment found  among  Foxe's  MSS.,  and  referred  to  above 
we  discover   a    note  concerning  Barlow,  Scorey,  and 


IOO     WAS BARLO  W £  VER  CONSECRA  TED  BISHOP? 

Coverdale,  which  seems  greatly  to  strengthen  the  opin- 
ion that  Barlow  was  never  consecrated.  The  writer, 
evidently  in  the  confidence  of  the  Reformers,  writ- 
ing in  their  favor,  having  access  to  registers,  though 
he  states  when  and  by  whom  the  other  two  were 
consecrated,  is  as  dry  and  indefinite  about  Barlow 
as  his  Buffalo  defender  himself,  merely  stating, 
"  William  Barlow  was  consecrated  in  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII."  May  we  not  reasonably  conclude  that 
he  was  unable  to  tell  the  date  of  the  consecration,  or 
the  names  of  the  bishops  who  consecrated  him?  We 
are,  then,  surely  justified  in  the  conclusion  that,  al- 
though we  cannot  establish  with  absolute  certainty 
and  by  positive  evidence,  that  Barlow  was  never  con- 
secrated, the  probabilities  are  against  him,  and  "with 
so  many  circumstances  of  suspicion,  arising  from  dif- 
ferent quarters,  yet  pointing  the  same  way,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  admit  the  fact  of  his  consecration  without  more 
direct  proof  of  it."  It  is  then  and  must  remain  very 
doubtful  that  Barlow  was  anything  more  than  a  bishop 
elect.  Anglicans  and  Episcopalians  can  never  be 
certain  of  their  orders,  not  to  speak  of  succession,  un- 
less they  can  have  an  absolute  certainty  of  Barlow's 
consecration,  and  yet  it  is  boldly  affirmed  that  the 
"canon  of  Scripture  rests  on  no  evidence  more  ex- 
plicit." 


BA KL OW'S  DOUB  TFUL  CONSECKA  TION.  j 0 x 


VIII. 

FUTILE  ATTEMPTS   TO   BOLSTER    UP    OR    SUPPLY  FOR 
BARLOW'S  DEFICIENT  OR  DOUBTFUL  CONSECRATION. 

WE  will  now  examine  what  we  must  regard  as  a 
mere  subterfuge,  a  last  and  very  poor  shift  to 
escape  the  consequences  of  the  very  grave  doubts  con- 
cerning Barlow's  episcopal  character.  "  It  must  be 
remembered,"  says  the  Buffalo  defender  of  Anglican 
succession,'  "  that  it  is  of  no  real  consequence, 
whether  Barlow  was  or  was  not  a  bishop,  as  he  was 
only  one  of  four  bishops,  who  laid  hands,  all  pro- 
nouncing together  the  formula  of  consecration."  In 
this  he  follows  the  lead  of  such  Anglican  writers  as 
Mason  and  Bramhall,  who  taking  it  from  the  Register 
that  all  four  imposed  their  hands  and  said  the  words 
of  the  Rite  together,  argue  that  all  four  were  really 
consecrators,  and,  therefore,  it  would  be  sufficient  if 
only  one  of  the  four  had  been  a  bishop.  Mr.  Haddon, 
too,  declares  that  Barlow  presided  at  Parker's  conse- 
cration, but  the  position  occupied  by  him  does  not 
answer  to  that  of  the  consecrating  bishop,  for  all 
joined  throughout  and  equally,  both  in  the  imposition 
of  hands  and  the  words.  All  this  we  learn  from 
Canon  Estcourt,  and  it  will,  we  think,  be  evident  to 
any  one  who  weighs  carefully  and  without  prejudice, 
all  the    documents  and  authorities  he  adduces,    that 


102  FUTILE  ATTEMPTS  TO  SUPPLY  FOR 

"  the  Anglican  party  finding  out  what  a  mistake  they 
had  made  in  allowing  Barlow  to  act  as  consecrator," 
tampered  with  the  Register,  "  had  it  wholly  or  partially 
rewritten  so  as  to  gloss  over  Barlow's  being  the  prin- 
cipal in  the  function,"  with  a  view  of  meeting  the 
damaging  charges  of  laxity  of  faith  and  morals  made 
by  Catholics  against  Barlow  himself,  and  the  doubts 
and  difficulties  about  his  consecration.  As  we  have 
already  remarked,  in  this  Register  produced  by  Mason, 
there  is  a  remarkable  departure  from  the  usual  form. 
In  all  other  instances,  the  Register  records  the  name, 
either  of  the  archbishop  or  of  some  bishop  commis- 
sioned by  him,  as  taking  the  principal  part,  and  two 
other  bishops  assisting  him,  but  in  Parker's  case  the 
Register  makes  no  mention  of  a  consecrating  bishop  and 
assistants,  stating  simply  that  all  four  imposed  hands, 
and  said  the  words  of  the  form,  without  saying  that 
they,  or  any  one  of  them,  consecrated  him,  or  that-  he 
was  consecrated  by  them,  and  Mr.  Haddon  himself  re- 
marks "that  in  other  cases  a  distinction  is  made 
between  the  consecrating  and  assisting  bishops,  which 
is  not  made  here."  This  exceptional  form  of  registra- 
tion and  singular  deviation  from  the  customary  style 
of  records,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  in  the  MSS.  al- 
ready referred  to,  and  found  in  the  British  Museum, 
Barlow  is  expressly  named  as  consecrator,  and  the 
others  as  assistants,  show  that  if  Parker's  Register  be 
not  an  entire  forgery,  the  original  record  has  been  falsi- 
fied, tampered  with,  for  a  purpose.  That  purpose  we 
can  easily  conjecture  from  the  labored  attempts  to  sus- 
tain the  opinion  which  Mr.  Haddon  thus  expresses : 
"  The  absence  of  Barlow's  consecration,  if  it  were  so, 
would  not  invalidate  that  of    Parker."     An  extreme 


BARLOW'S  DOUBTFUL  CONSE  CRA  TION. 


IO3 


and  hazardous  opinion,  indeed,  but  drowning  men 
catch  at  straws,  and  the  Anglicans  seem  ready  to  em- 
brace any  opinion  or  broach  any  theory  that  may  save 
them  from  the  alternative  of  resting  their  orders  and 
hierarchy  on  the  doubly  doubtful  Barlow. 

But  supposing  the  opinion  tenable,  that  all  four  were 
consecrators,  and  that  even  if  Barlow,  the  presiding  prel- 
ate, were  not  a  consecrated  bishop,  had  no  episcopal 
character,  Parker  would  still  be  validly  consecrated, 
because  the  three  others  joined  with  Barlow  in  impos- 
ing hands  and  reciting  the  form  ;  who  are  these  others 
on  whom  we  are  forced  to  fall  back?  Scorey,  Coverdale 
and  Hodgkins.  Scorey  and  Coverdale  were  consecrated 
by  the  form  devised  by  Edward  VI.,  but  that  form  is 
notoriously  invalid  and  insufficient,  as  we  shall  see  pres- 
ently, and  therefore  they  wene  not  bishops  at  all,  and 
consequently  will  not  help  Anglicanism  out*  of  the 
dilemma  into  which  Barlow  has  brought  it.  Its  last  re- 
sort and  only  dependence  are  now  on  Hodgkins,  the 
suffragan  of  Bedford.  But  so  poor  is  this  dependence, 
so  weak  and  rickety  this  last  prop,  that  Dr.  Elrington 
himself  admits  that,  "  if  Ward  could  prove  that  Scorey 
and  Coverdale  (in  addition  to  Barlow)  were  not  truly 
bisliops  it  would  then  follow  that  Parker  was  not  a 
bishop,  and  the  succession  of  the  English  clergy  would 
be  destroyed."  Yet  Hodgkins,  though  only  a  suffragan 
and  without  jurisdiction,  was  a  real  bishop,  having  been 
validly  consecrated,  with  a  valid  Catholic  form,  by 
Stokesly,  bishop  of  London,  in  1537,  and  hence,  if  the 
Register  can  be  relied  on  as  detailing  the  real  facts  as 
they  occurred,  and  the  opinion  of  certain  Anglican 
writers  such  as  Mason,  that  all  four  were  equally  con- 
secrators, and  that  it  would  be  sufficient  if  only  one  of 


104  FUTILE  A  TTEMPTS  TO  SUP  PL  Y  FOR 

them  were  a  bishop,  can  be  maintained,  Parker  may- 
still  be  a  bishop,  though  Barlow  most  probably,  and 
Scorey  and  Coverdale  certainly,  were  not.  We  are, 
however,  inclined  to  think  that  any  one  who  will  take 
the  pains  to  examine  this  question,  and  study  the  con- 
temporaneous documents  now  within  reach,  will  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  presenting  of  all  four  as 
equally  and  individually  consecrators  is  an  after- 
thought, and  that  Barlow  and  the  others  using  Edward's 
ordinal  followed  its  prescriptions,  and  did  not  devise 
something  new  and  exceptional.  Now  Edward's  or- 
dinal and  the  rubric  of  the  Pontifical,  and  the  invariable 
and  immemorial  usage  in  England,  as  is  evident  from 
every  register  extant,  except  Parker's,  suppose  and  pre- 
scribe that  there  shall  be  one  consecrating  bishop,  and 
two  assistants.  Hodgkins  was  then  most  probably  pres- 
ent, but  took  no  part  in  the  ceremony,  just  as  now, 
and  at  all  times  in  the  Catholic  Church,  prelates  come 
by  their  presence  to  add  solemnity  and  eclat  to  the  con- 
secration of  a  brother  bishop,  but  only  the  officiating 
prelate,  who  really  consecrates,  and  the  two  assistants, 
take  any  active  part  in  the  ceremony,  so  that  we  think 
Dr.  Elrington  was  quite  right  in  saying,  that  if  Scorey 
and  Coverdale,  in  addition  to  Barlow,  were  no  bishops, 
then  Parker  was  not  a  bishop. 

Now  as  to  the  theological  soundness  of  the  opinion 
that  all  are  equally  consecrators,  certain  Catholic  theo- 
logians are  quoted  as  maintaining  that  the  bishops 
present  are  not  only  witnesses,  but  co-operators.  "Omncs 
qui  adsunt  episcopi  non  tantum  testes,  sed  etiam  co-opera- 
tores  esse  citra  omnem  dubitationis  aleavi  asserendum  est." 
(Martene.)  This  by  no  means  implies  that  they  con- 
secrate either  separately  from  him  or  equally  with  him, 


BARLOW'S  DOUBTFUL  CONSECRATION. 


105 


but  that  they  assist  and  co-operate  with  the  conse- 
crator, and  invariably  in  the  rubrics  one  is  called  the 
consecrator,  the  others,  assistants.  The  consecrator  is 
spoken  of  as  effecting  and  completing  the  whole  conse- 
cration, the  others  as  "  aiding,"  "  co-operating,"  "  giving 
testimony  and  approval."  Numerous  grave  authori- 
ties and  learned  theological  writers  might  be  adduced, 
asserting  with  Filliucius,  "  Although  there  are  three 
who  consecrate,  one  of  them  alone  completes  the  con- 
secration, even  though  the  others  pronounce  the  words, 
for  of  one  sacrament  there  is  but  one  minister."  We 
are  quite  willing  to  coincide  with  the  very  modest  and 
moderate  views  of  Canon  Estcourt :  "  Without  ventur- 
ing to  express  an  opinion  on  either  side  of  these  dis- 
puted points — that  is  to  say,  whether  the  assistant 
bishops  are  only  '  testes,'  or  also  '  co-operatorcs,'  and  if 
co-operatorcs  in  what  sense  they  co-operate  ;  or  whether 
the  consecrator  alone  is  the  minister  of  the  sacrament, 
and  alone  completes  the  consecration,  or  whether  the 
others  are  joint  consecrators  with  him,  or  whether  it 
could  be  maintained,  that  all  the  bishops  present  are 
equally  and  separately  and  individually  consecrators, 
— it  is  obvious  that  in  a  point  touching  the  administra- 
tion of  a  sacrament,  such  a  defect  as  the  absence  of  the 
episcopal  character  on  the  part  of  the  principal  conse- 
crator would  throw  a  very  grave  doubt  on  the  validity 
of  the  consecration.  It  is  quite  sufficient  to  cause  the 
doubt  that  various  authorities  should  have  taught  that 
'one  bishop  alone  effects  the  whole  consecration.'  " 
Under  no  possible  theory,  then,  can  the  episcopal 
character  of  Parker  or  the  validity  of  his  consecration 
be  more  than  doubtful  on  the  score  of  his  consecrators. 
whilst  on  the  score  of  the  form  used,  as  we  shall  soon 


106  FUTILE  ATTEMPTS  TO  SUPPLY  FOR 

see,  there  was  most  certainly  no  valid  consecration,  even 
on  the  supposition  that  everything  was  done  as  the 
register  supposes,  and  as  the  Anglicans  themselves 
claim.  As,  however,  some  persons  are  not  a  little  exer- 
cised over  the  number  of  bishops  essential  to  a  valid 
consecration,  and  seem  not  able  to  distinguish  between 
canon's  of  discipline,  and  doctrines  of  faith,  declaring 
Roman  Catholic  succession  in  America  and  Ireland 
disfigured,  and  in  some  measure  vitiated  because  the 
canonical  number  of  three  bishops  has  been  sometimes 
wanting,  whilst  owning  that,  "without  this  condition, 
the  ordination  may  be  valid,  but  it  is  irregular  and 
defective,"  we  purpose  here  to  lay  down  from  Van 
Espen  the  true  Catholic  doctrine,  and  the  teaching  and 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church  on  this  subject.  "  By 
the  canons  of  the  Nicene  and  other  councils  the  dis- 
cipline was  established,  as  well  in  the  Greek  as  in  the 
Latin  Church,  that  besides  the  ordaining  bishop,  two 
others  ought  to  attend  at  the  consecration  of  a  bishop, 
and  personally  assist  him. 

"  The  reason  of  this  discipline  was  assigned  by  Pope 
Innocent  I.,  writing  in  his  epistle  to  Victricius,  that 
1  one  bishop  singly  should  not  presume  to  ordain  a 
bishop,  lest  the  benefice  seem  to  be  conferred  by 
stealth.  For  such  was  also  the  constitution  defined  in 
the  Nicene  Council  !'  As  if  he  would  say  the  council 
would  not  have  a  bishop  to  ascend  furtively,  or  like  a 
thief  into  the  fold  of  Christ,  but  publicly,  that  is  to 
say,  with  the  universal  Church,  represented  by  the 
bishops  of  the  province,  approving  and  assenting. 
But  neither  by  the  Pope,  nor  by  other  authorities,  is  a 
consecration  rejected  as  null  and  invalid,  if  done  with- 
out the  right  number  of  bishops,  but  only  censured  as 


BARLOW'S  DOUBTFUL  CONSECRATION. 


107 


clandestine,  and  performed  without  legitimate  ap- 
proval ;  for  the  presence  of  those  bishops  is  required, 
not  so  much  for  the  substance  and  validity  of  the  con- 
secration, as  for  having  it  well  considered  and  ap- 
proved. And  therefore,  in  case  of  necessity,  the  con- 
secration can  be  given  by  a  single  bishop,  since  the 
presence  of  three,  or  even  of  two,  appears  to  belong  to 
discipline,  and  not  to  the  substance  or  essence  of  the 
consecration."  We  do  not  then  deny  that,  "  Ancient 
as  well  as  modern  canons  prescribe  that  three  bishops 
should  be  present  at  a  consecration.  But  this  is  barely 
a. precept,  not  an  essential  condition,  and  it  appears  by 
the  form  used  in  the  Church  of  England,  as  well  as 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  that  only  one  prelate  is  con- 
sidered as  the  consecrator."  (Dr.  Kenrick.)  We'  might 
even  introduce  our  friend  to  a  Pope  who  lived  and 
governed  the  Church  before  the  Council  of  Nicea,  in 
the  time  of  the  Emperor  Trajan,  who  established  this 
discipline,  and  decreed  that  a  bishop  should  be  conse- 
crated by  not  less  than  three  bishops.  This  was  Pope 
St.  Anacletus.  But  surely  this  Apostolical  authority 
and  this  venerable  Catholic  Church,  which  established 
these  wise  regulations,  and  disciplinary  canons  are 
competent  to  interpret  them  and  carry  them  out  in  the 
spirit,  and  for  the  purposes  that  inspired  them.  She 
surely  must  be  authorized  to  relax  these  her  own  laws 
when  necessity  requires  it,  in  times  of  persecution,  or 
in  the  conversion  of  pagan  countries,  and  the  evangeli- 
zation of  nations.  And  most  undoubtedly  in  the 
establishment  of  the  American  hierarchy,  and  the 
consecration  of  the  first  bishop  of  the  American  col- 
onies, to  which  our  friend  takes  exception,  there  was 
nothing   hostile   or   repugnant   to   the  spirit    of   the 


108  FUTILE  ATTEMPTS  TO  SUPPLY  FOR 

Apostolical  canons  or  the  practice  of  the  Christian 
Church,  there  was  nothing  done  furtively  or  clandes- 
tinely, or  without  the  knowledge,  approval  and  assent 
of  the  clergy  of  the  province  and  the  universal  Church. 
Dr.  Carroll,  "  a  most  worthy  prelate,"  (though,  by  the 
way,  a  Jesuit),  was  elected  by  his  brethren  of  the 
clergy.  Their  choice  was  approved  and  confirmed  by 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  who  in  the  usual  form  and  style 
authorized  him  to  receive  the  episcopal  consecration 
from  any  Catholic  bishop  in  communion  with  the 
Holy  See.  And  if  there  was  at  that  period  no  regular 
and  canonical  hierarchy  in  England,  and  if  bishops 
were  scarce  and  convened  with  difficulty  in  that  once 
eminently  Catholic  island  devoted  to  the  Holy  See 
and  illustrated  by  saintly  bishops,  who  is  to  blame, 
but  the  persecuting,  apostate  Church  of  England?  And 
if  Dr.  Walmsley,  bishop  of  Rama  /«  partibus  in  fide  Hum, 
and  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  district  of  London,  cannot 
surround  the  solemn  ceremony  of  the  consecration  of 
the  first  bishop  of  the  American  Church  with  all  the 
eclat  and  pomp  of  a  numerous  attendance  of  his  epis- 
copal brethren,  the  blame  lies  at  the  door  of  those  who 
sought  to  crush  out  the  Catholic  hierarchy  by  fire  and 
sword,  by  the  most  cruel  and  tyrannical  persecution, 
and  we  think  Anglicans  ought  not  to  force  these  mem- 
ories back  upon  us.  The  consecration  was,  however, 
in  all  other  respects  most  solemn,  regular  and  canonical, 
and  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  doubting  its  validity,  or 
the  legitimacy  of  the  succession  starting  from  it,  and 
only  a  fertile  and  imaginative,  perhaps  poetical,  brain 
could  invent  the  new  succession  from  Archbishop 
Bedini. 

This  we  deem  sufficient,  in   reply  to  the  call  made 


BARLOW'S  DOUBTFUL  CONSECRATION.  109 

on  us  "to  clear  up  the  difficulties  which  hang  about 
our  own  orders,"  and  the  strange  assertions  that  "  no- 
body involved  in  such  a  consecration  is  in  a  position 
to  object  to  the  order  of  others."  But  we  can  hardly 
forbear  a  smile,  when  we  read — "But  neither  the 
Walmsley  nor  the  Bedini  ordination  have  (sic)  any 
validity  as  establishing  a  canonical  episcopate  in  this 
country.  Our  lawful  bishops  were  already  settled  in 
their  sees,  according  to  the  Catholic  constitutions, 
having  been  duly  elected  by  their  dioceses,  and  no 
Italian  prelate  whatever  could  give  any  commission 
in  this  country  without  their  consent,  except  in  that  de- 
fiance of  all  canons  which  for  many  years  has  been 
habitual  with  the  Popedom."  This  is  decidedly  cool, 
some  might  call  it  cheeky;  The  bishops  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  are  here.  Then  beware,  Cath- 
olics, how  you  intrude !  Supreme  Pontiff,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  though  the  whole  flock  of  Christ  is  committed 
to  thy  care, "  Feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  sheep ;" 
though  thou  art  constituted  to  "  confirm  thy  brethren," 
and  to  sustain  as  a  solid  rock  and  immovable  founda- 
tion the  whole  Church  of  Christ,  venture  not  to  send 
thy  emissaries  to  the  free  land  of  America,  where  "  our 
lawful  bishops  have  already  settled  their  sees."  How- 
ever, the  papacy  has  been  for  a  long  time — for  well 
nigh  1900  years — accustomed  to  disregard  such  insen- 
sate pretensions,  and  to  send  its  missionaries,  priests 
and  prelates,  in  defiance  of  infidelity,  heresy  and  error 
of  every  kind,  to  plant  the  standard  of  the  Cross,  to 
preach  Christ  crucified,  to  teach  the  faith  of  the  gospel 
in  all  lands,  and  this  mission  it  will  continue  to  fulfil  to 
the  end  of  time.  But  this  comes  with  a  singularly  bad 
grace  from  one  who  it  will  be  remembered  by  all  our 


T  IO  BARLO  WS  DO UB TFUL  CONSECKA  7/0 JV. 

readers  congratulated,  in  a  note  published  in  all  our 
papers,  Reinkens  on  his  consecration,  and  reached  out 
to  him  the  hand  of  fellowship  as  an  episcopal  brother 
in  full  standing,  though  Bishop  Reinkens  had  gone  all 
the  way  to  Holland  to  be  consecrated  by  one  Jansenist 
bishop,  and  had  come  back  with  what  might  rightly  be 
called  a  roving  commission  as  universal  "  Old  Catholic" 
bishop  of  Germany,  or  something  of  the  kind,  though 
the  Catholic  bishops  were  already  established  in  their 
sees,  and  all  refused  to  impose  hands  on  him,  or  admit 
him  to  any  share  in  their  office,  dignity  or  charge. 
Kaiser  Wilhelm  commissions  him ;  Prince  Bismarck 
signs  his  episcopal  brevet ;  he  promises  servile  obedi- 
ence to  the  State.  This  is  warrant  enough;  no  men- 
tion of  violated  canons;  of  irregular  and  defective  ordi- 
nation!   .O  consistency,  thou  art  a  jewel! 


THE  JLDIVARDINE  OKDIjVAL.  ln 


IX. 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME  AS  THE 
ROMAN  rONTIFICAL — INVALIDITY  OF  FORM  OF  CON- 
SECRATION DEVISED  BY  EDWARD  VI. 

HAVING  seen  how  vain  is  the  attempt  to  make 
Scorey-,'  Coverdale  and  Hodgkins  supply  for 
Barlow's  doubtful  sufficiency  to  validly  consecrate 
Parker,  we  come  now  to  discuss  the  main  question — is 
the  form  which  Barlow  is  said  to  have  used  in  the  con- 
secration of  Parker  a  valid  form,  capable  of  conferring 
a  valid  episcopal  consecration?  We  before  affirmed 
that  whatever  opinion  we  may  form  of  the  question  of 
fact  of  Parker's  consecration,  which,  as  a  matter  of 
opinion  and  history,  is  to  be  determined  by  historical 
research,  "  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  on  account 
of  the  form  used,  Anglican,  and  consequently  Protest- 
ant Episcopal,  orders  arc  vitiated  and  invalidated." 
Again,  "  Even  if  Barlow  were  a  regularly  consecrated 
bishop,  and  went  through  the  form  of  Parker's  conse- 
cration, the  form  used,  namely,  that  devised,  as  the  act 
expresses  it,  by  Edward,  was  notoriously  insufficient 
and  invalid."  And  again,  "  The  Church  established  by 
law  seems  to  have  felt  this  herself,  for,  in  the  year  1662, 
just,  one  hundred  and  three  years  too  late  to  save 
Anglican  orders  (Parker's  consecration,  according  to 
the    Lambeth     Register,    was    in    1559),    convocation 


1 12     THE  ED  WARD1NE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME 

changed  the  form,  evidently  with  the  aim  of  supplying 
the  defect  pointed  out  by  Catholic  divines."  In  reply, 
we  are  told  .  "The  Roman  Pontifical  differs  from  the 
Ordinal  by  which  Parker  was  consecrated  in  nothing 
which  any  theologian  has  ever  ventured  to  pronounce 
essential."  Now,  we  think  it  hardly  worth  our  while 
to  waste  words  with  any  man  who  so  boldly  and  un- 
blushingly  sets  truth  at  defiance,  and  contradicts  all 
history.  The  fact  is  that  every  Catholic  theologian, 
and  every  Catholic  writer  who  has  treated  of  the  sub- 
ject, has  denied  the  .validity  of  all  ordinations  con- 
ferred according  to  the  Ordinal  of  Edward,  and  surely 
that  is  making  an  essential  difference  between  it  and 
the  Roman  Pontifical.  Such  was  the  judgment  of 
Cardinal  Pole,  legate  of  the  Holy  See,  and  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  who,  with 
his  sub-delegates,  theologians,  counsellors,  and  ad- 
visers, investigated  the  question,  when  everything  was 
fresh  and  information  easily  obtained,  when  nobody 
could  have  any  interest  in  concealing  the  truth,  and 
when  all  must  have  been  more  than  willing  to  recog- 
nize orders  conferred  according  to  the  new  rites,  if  the 
orders  were  valid.  How  much  trouble  would  have 
been  saved  !  how  many  won  over  by  a  favorable  de- 
cision !  None  knew  better  than  they  what  discontent 
and  trouble  would  ensue  if  men  were  to  be  disturbed 
in  the  possession  of  benefices  and  bishoprics,  to  which 
they  had  been  promoted  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
realm  and  forms  devised  by  the  king,  and  sanctioned 
by  Parliament.  Yet  judgment,  a  solemn  and  deliberate, 
disinterested,  impartial  judgment,  was  then  pronounced 
against  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders,  and  that  judg- 
ment has  never  been  reversed.     The  same  has  been  the 


AS  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL. 


"3 


judgment  of  all  Catholic  theologians  for  three  hundred 
years,  and  the  same  is  the  judgment  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to-day,  and  yet,  here  is  a  writer  with  some  pre- 
tensions, too,  to  position  and  respectability,  and  ecclesi- 
astical knowledge,  who  not  only  insults  truth  and 
candor,  but  also  the  intelligence  of  his  readers,  by  as- 
serting that  the  '  Roman  Pontifical  differs  from  the 
Ordinal  by  which  Parker  was  consecrated  in  nothing 
which  any  theologian  has  ever  ventured  to  pronounce 
essential." 

We  might,  perhaps,  refer,  not  him,  but  his  readers,  to 
Dr.  Milner("  End  of  Religious  Controversy"),  Most  Rev. 
Francis  Patrick  Kenrick  ("  Theologia  Dogmatica"),  Most 
Rev.  Peter  Richard  Kenrick  ("  Anglican  Ordinations"), 
Dom  Wilfrid  Raynal,  O.S.B.  ("  The  Ordinal  of  Edward 
VI."),  E.  E.  Estcourt,  M.A.,  F.S.A.  ("  The  Question 
of  Anglican  Ordinations"),  as  theologians  whose  works 
are  probably  the  most  accessible,  and  who,  ex  prof esso, 
show  the  essential  difference  between  the  Catholic  and 
the  Anglican  form  of  consecration,  between  the  Roman 
Pontifical  and  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  and  learnedly 
and  conclusively  demonstrate  in  the  language  of  an 
able  writer  in  the  Dublin  Rcviciv  for  July,  1873,  that 
"The  orders  conferred  by  the  bishops  who  fell  into 
heresy,  and  who  used  what  is  called  the  Edwardine  Or- 
dinal, were  held  invalid,  absolutely  null,  and  unto  this 
day  there  has  been  no  change  in  the  discipline  of  the 
Church."  But  our  Buffalo  divine  appears  to  contradict 
himself,  for,  in  speaking  of  the  different  pleas  on  which 
Catholics  demur  to  the  claim  of  Apostolic  succes- 
sion in  the  Anglican  Church,  he  says:  "The  more 
decent  controvertist  tries  to  prove  that  the  form  of 
words  is  defective."     Who  are  these  more  decent  con- 


1 14.     THE  ED  VVARDINE  ORDINAL  NO  T  THE  SAME 

trovertists,  unless  theologians?  And  how  do  they  try 
to  prove  the  form  defective,  unless  by  proving  the 
Edwardine  form  insufficient  and  invalid,  and  conse- 
quently essentially  different  from  the  form  of  the 
Roman  Pontifical?  But  we  are  taken  to  task,  for  as- 
serting what  we  have  now  affirmed,  that  Cardinal  Pole 
and  the  Church  positively  and  constantly  refused  to 
recognize  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders,  or  the 
valid  consecration  of  bishops,  ordained  according  to 
the  new  rites  devised  by  Edward,  or  the  Ordinal  which 
he  published  and  forced  on  the  English  Church,  as  a 
substitute  for  the'  old  English  liturgies,  thus :  "  Dr. 
Ryan  again  quarrels  with  history,  when  he  asserts  that 
the  Popes  never  recognized  as  bishops  those  ordained 
by  the  Ordinal  of.  Edward.  On  the  contrary,  Pope 
Paul  IV.,  his  legate,  Cardinal  Pole,  and  all  the  papal 
bishops  of  England  did  this  in  Queen  Mary's  time, 
thus  barring  forever  such  cavils  as  Dr.  Ryan  has  col- 
lected. Rome  never  pretended  to  doubt  the  validity 
of  the  consecrations  under  the  Reformed  Ordinal  till 
she  lost  hope  of  regaining  the  Anglican  Church." 

Now,  on  this,  as  on  many  other  points,  the  gentle- 
man has  been  imposed  upon  and  misled  by  Dr.  Lee 
who,  himself  following  the  lead  of  Bramhall,  pretends 
to  produce"  Roman  Catholic  testimonies  to  the  valid- 
ity of  Anglican  orders."  Canon  Estcourt,  who  has 
entered  into  an  elaborate  and  critical  examination  of 
this  point,  tells  us:  "  However  ambiguous  may  be  the 
statements  of  Catholic  divines  referring  to  Parker's  con- 
secration, there  is  no  doubt  with  regard  to  either  their 
opinion  or  their  practice,  when  they  come  to  deal  with 
ordinations  given  and  received  according  to  the  form 
annexed  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  1552,  and 


AS   THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL.  115 

afterwards  confirmed  by  the  act,  8  Eliz.  cap.  I." 
After  producing  copious  extracts  from  Allen,  who 
states  the  practice  of  the  English  College  at  Rheims, 
from  Bristow,  Parsons  and  the  petitions  presented  to 
King  Jameson  behalf  of  his  Catholic  subjects,  which 
declares :  "  Neither  is  the  Protestant  minister  nor 
bishop.,  coming  to  our  Catholicke  fraternity  (as  many- 
come  of  the  first  sort),  reputed  other  than  for  mere 
laymen  without  orders,"  and  bringing  the  tradition  of 
the  invalidity  of  the  Edwardine  orders  down  from  the 
time  of  Cardinal  Pole,  he  makes  out  an  interesting  list 
of  Anglican  ministers  reconciled  to  the  Catholic  Church 
before  the  year  1704,  and  ordained  in  the  Cathoh'c 
Church  after  their  reconciliation.  He  then  takes  up 
in  detail  Dr.  Lee's  list  of  Anglican  clergymen,  who, 
after  having  been  received  into  the  Church,  were  said 
to  have  declined  being  ordained,  because  they  believed 
themselves  true  priests,  and  premising  that,  "  it  is  of 
very  little  importance  what  opinions  these  persons 
may  have  entertained  on  the  subject,  having  been 
bred  up  in  heresy,  and  not  having  studied  a  course  of 
Catholic  theology,  nor  having  even  imbibed  Catholic 
instincts,  they  were  not  qualified  to  form  a  sound 
judgment  on  the  question,"  he  shows  that  Dr.  Lee  has 
no  foundation  for  many  of  his  statements ;  is  incorrect 
in  regard  to  others,  and  that  many  of  the  cases  have 
no  bearing  on  the  controversy,  and  sums  up  the  whole 
as  follows :  "  On  review  of  these  several  cases  it  may 
be  confidently  asserted  that  there  is  an  unbroken 
tradition  from  the  year  1554,  to  the  present  time,  con- 
firmed by  constant  practice  in  France  and  Rome  as 
well  as  this  country  (England),  in  accordance  with 
which  Anglican  orders  are  looked  upon  as  absolutely 


I  !6  THE  ED  WARD1NE  ORDINAL  NO  T  THE  SAME 

null  and  void ;  and  Anglican  ministers  are  treated 
simply  as  laymen,  so  that  those  who  wish  to  be- 
come priests  have  to  be  ordained  unconditionally. 
Not  a  single  instance  to  the  contrary  can  be  alleged. 
The  only  case  in  which  any  discussion  appears  to  have 
arisen,  is  referred  to  by  a  contemporary  writer  as  an 
illustration  of  the  accustomed  rule.  And  the  state- 
ments made  of  objections  having  been  raised  by 
various  converts  to  being  ordained  in  the  Catholic 
Church  are  shown  either  to  be  contradicted  by  the 
facts,  or  to  have  no  theological  importance,  on  account 
of  the  persons  named  being  unknown,  or  married,  or 
of  an  unsuitable  character,  or  only  recently  converted, 
or  possessing  no  clear  and  certain  testimony  as  to 
their  opinions  on  the  subject."  The  Dublin  Review,  in 
the  article  already  mentioned,  written  by  one,  in  our 
estimation,  fully  as  much  of  a  theologian  as  our  Buffalo 
divine,  thus  continues  this  subject :  "  People  may  dis- 
pute if  they  like,  but  the  fact  remains,  that  in  the 
Church  the  Anglican  orders  have  never  been  received, 
never  at  any  time.  Besides,  there  never  was  any  doubt 
about  them.  The  Catholics  left  in  England  after  the 
persecutions  of  Elizabeth,  and  during  them,  never  hesi- 
tated ;  they  saw  with  their  eyes  and  heard  with  their, 
ears,  and  not  one  of  them,  learned  or  unlearned,  seems 
to  have  imagined  for  a  moment  that  any  of  the  minis- 
ters made  by  Parker  could  say  Mass.  It  might  puzzle 
a  profound  theologian  to  say  where  the  flaw  is,  but  no 
theologian,  whether  profound  or  not,  has  done  anything 
else  but  confess  the  flaw."  Of  Canon  Estcourt,  the 
learned  reviewer  says  :  "  He  has  shown  by  most  con- 
clusive proofs  that  the  Anglican  ordinations  have,  in 
no  instance,  been  recognized  ;  that  the  practice  of  the 


AS  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL. 


117 


Church  has  been  uniform  and  constant  from  the  days  of 
Cardinal  Pole,  under  whose  archiepiscopate  the  ques- 
tion was  first  discussed ;  it  could  not  have  been 
discussed  before.  From  that  day  to  this,  the  Angli- 
can ordinations  have  been  regarded  as  nullities,  con- 
veying no  spiritual  power  whatever,  and  leaving  the 
recipients  as  much  laymen  as  ever  they  were  in 
their  lives."  Now,  what  can  we  think  of  a  man 
who  has  the  hardihood  to  assert  publicly  that  no  theo- 
logian has  ever  ventured  to  question  the  validity  of 
orders  conferred  according  to  the  Edwardine  Ordinal, 
or  what  is  tantmount  to  that,  namely,  that  the  Roman 
Pontifical  differs  in  nothing  that  any  theologian  has  ever 
ventured  to  pronounce  essential  from  the  Ordinal  by 
which  Parker  was  consecrated.  What  confidence  can 
we  place  in  a  writer  who,  with  these  facts  staring  him 
in  the  face,  boldly  and  unblushingly  affirms,  that 
Rome  never  pretended  to  doubt  the  validity  of  the 
consecrations  under  the  reformed.  Ordinal,  till  she  lost 
hope  of  regaining  the  Anglican  Church?  We  cannot 
forbear  branding  here  another  similar,  deceitful,  asser- 
tion :  "The  Pope  did  not  withdraw  the  Papists  from 
the  Church  of  England,  until  the  tenth  year  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and  till  this  all  his  adherents  remained  in 
communion  with  their  proper  Church,  and  also  in  his 
communion.  This  fact  proves  that  the  Anglican 
bishops  and  clergy  were  fully  recognized  at  Rome,  so 
long  as  the  Popes  had  any  hope  of  regaining  power 
over  them."  He  refers  to  the  bull  of  excommunication, 
which,  he  tells  us,  Pius  V.  issued  against  Elizabeth  in 
1570,  to  which  he  evidently  attaches  little  importance. 
as  he  is  convinced  of  the  nullity  and  impotence  of  the 
Pope's  spiritual  and  temporal  authority,  but  when  he 


1 1 8     THE  ED  WARDINE  ORDINAL  NO  T  THE  SAME 

talks  of  the  Pope  withdrawing  the  Papists  from  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  tenth  year  of  Elizabeth,  and 
that,  until  then,  his  adherents  remained  in  communion 
with  their  proper  Church  and  in  his  communion,  he 
talks  silly  nonsense,  and,  wishing  to  appeal  to  ignorant 
prejudices,  he  simply  stultifies  himself.  But  admire  at 
least  his  logical  acumen  !  "  This  fact,  viz. : — that  the 
Pope  did  not  withdraw  the  Papists  from  the  Church  of 
England  until  the  tenth  year  of  Elizabeth — proves  that 
the  Anglican  bishops  and  clergy  were  fully  recognized 
at  Rome,  so  long  as  the  Popes  had  any  hope  of  regain- 
ing power  over  them." 

If  you  can't  see  it,  so  much  the  worse  for  you  ;  the 
fault  lies  in  your  dimness  of  vision,  or  dulness  of  per- 
ception, not  in  the  argument,  particularly  when  you 
know  that  all  the  bishops  and  clergy,  who  acknowl- 
edged the  royal  supremacy,  were  excommunicated  in 
the  time  of  Henry.  We  wonder  if  the  gentleman  knew 
this  when  he  elaborated  the  above  argument?  We 
wonder  if  he  ever  read  how  the  bishops  and  the  clergy 
in  Mary's  reign  sued  for  reconciliation  with  the  Church, 
and  obtained,  from  the  Papal  legate,  absolution  from 
the  excommunication  and  spiritual  censures  incurred 
by  various  acts  of  schism  and  heresy,  during  the  reigns 
of  Henry  and  Edward,  and  how  the  whole  kingdom 
was  publicly  and  solemnly  reconciled  to  the  Church, 
on  the  30th  of  November,  1554,  by  Cardinal  Pole,  legate 
of  the  Holy  See  ?  Yes,  he  must  at  least  have  had  some 
inkling  of  this.  He  must  have  read  something  of  the 
legatine  powers  given  by  the  Pope  to  Cardinal  Pole, 
and  the  extraordinary  faculties  exercised  by  him,  in 
reconciling  and  absolving  and  dispensing  with  the 
bishops  and  clergy  in  Mary's  time,  because  it  is  from  a 


AS   THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL. 


II9 


misunderstanding  and  misinterpretation  of  these  facul- 
ties, and  the  cases  in  which  they  were  exercised,  that 
Bramhall,  Elrington,  Haddon  and  Lee  erroneously  con- 
cluded, as  he  does  (for  he  only  repeats,  almost  ver- 
batim, Bramhall's  words),  that :  "  King  Edward's  form 
of  ordination  was  judged  valid  in  Queen  Mary's  days 
by  all  Catholics,  and  particularly  by  Cardinal  Pole,  then 
Apostolic  legate  in  England,  and  by  the  then  Pope, 
Paul  IV.,  and  by  all  the  clergy  and  Parliament  of  Eng- 
land." We  shall  soon  show  the  true  meaning  of  the 
powers  and  faculties  granted  to,  and  exercised  by,  the 
legate,  and  that  they  did  not,  and  were  never  meant, 
to  extend  to  the  Edwardine  clergy,  and  no  one  ordained 
by  the  Edwardine  form  was  allowed  to  celebrate  Mass 
or  retain  his  benefice,  unless  after  a  new  ordination. 
"  The  fact  is,"  says  Canon  Estcourt,  "  the  Anglican 
orders  were  completely  ignored,  and  those  who  had 
received  them  were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
looked  upon  as  mere  laymen." 

That  there  is,  then,  an  essential  difference  between 
the  form  of  the  Roman  Pontifical,  and  that  of  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal,  by  which  Parker  is  said  to  have 
been  consecrated,  we  have  shown,  and  we  named,  for 
the  benefit  of  those  wishing  to  know  the  truth,  some 
Catholic  theologians  who  wrote  expressly  and  pro- 
fessedly to  demonstrate  a  difference  so  essential  as  to 
make  one  form  valid,  and  the  other  invalid,  and  some 
theological  and  popular  works  easily  accessible  giving 
not  only  the  opinion  of  their  authors,  but  collecting 
the  testimony  of  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  theologians  and 
scholars,  all  testifying  to  the  unbroken  Catholic  tradi- 
tion of  the  insufficiency  and  invalidity  of  all  orders 
conferred  according  to  the  new  rites  devised  by  Edward, 


120 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME 


Cranmer,  and  their  worthy  compeers.  That  such  has 
been  Catholic  tradition  and  unanimous  teaching  of 
theologians  since  the  question  was  first  mooted  in  the 
reign  of  Mary,  we  confirmed  from  the  invariable  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  in  ordaining  unconditionally  all 
Anglican  prelates  and  presbyters  who,  returning  to  her 
bosom  and  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  wished  to  exer- 
cise the  holy  ministry,  and  were  found  worthy  to  re- 
ceive the  priestly  character,  and  discharge  the  duties 
of  the  'priestly  office.  This  incontrovertible  fact  is 
overwhelming  evidence  of  the  mind  of  the  Church  re- 
garding the  validity  of  Anglican  orders,  and  the  Or- 
dinal by  which  Parker  was  consecrated.  As,  however, 
this  is  a  vital  point,  we  have  thought  proper  to  add  to 
the  authorities  already  given  the  testimony  of  Dodd. 
the  historian,  found  in  Appendix  No.  42,  "  Dodd's 
Church  History  of  England,"  by  Canon  Tierney,  F.R. 
S.,  F.S.A.: 

"  Though  the  consecration  of  bishops  and  priests, 
in  Henry  VIII. 's  reign  (after  the  schism  happened,  and 
a  general  interdict  and  excommunication  was  pro- 
nounced against  the  whole  ecclesiastical  body),  was 
esteemed  uncanonical,  and  .annulled  as  to  jurisdiction, 
yet  all  the  time  during  the  said  reign,  the  validity  of 
these  consecrations  was  never  contested  by  the  Catho- 
lic party.  But,  in  the  succeeding  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
a  considerable  alteration  being  made  in  doctrinal 
points,  and,  among  other  things,  a  new  Ordinal  estab- 
lished, their  ordination  was  not  only  looked  upon  as 
uncanonical,  but  also  as  invalid,  upon  account  of  the 
errors  and  omissions,  which  declared  the  unsufficiency 
of  their  Ordinal.  The  reformers  not  only  struck  out 
the  article  of  obedience  to  the  See  of  Rome  (which 


A S  THE  ROMA N  PON TIFICA L.  \2\ 

rendered  their  consecration  uncanonical,  and  deprived 
them  of  all  spiritual  jurisdiction),  but  the  most  of  them 
renewed  the  error  of  Arius,  and  made  no  essential  dif- 
ference between  the  episcopal  and  sacerdotal  character." 

To  these  errors  they  added  several  others,  which 
were  directly  incompatible  with  a  valid  ordination;  that, 
ordination  was  not  a  sacrament  instituted  by  Christ,  but 
only  a  mere  ceremony,  to  appoint  a  ministry  in  relig- 
ious performances:  that,  all  power,  both  temporal  and 
spiritual,  was  derived  from  the  civil,  government,  and, 
namely,  from  the  king  ;  that,  those  of  the  episcopal 
character  could  perform  nothing  effectually  towards 
the  validity  of  their  character,  without  the  king's 
mandate  or  letters  patent ;  that,  those  of  the  sacerdotal 
character  had  no  power  to  offer  sacrifice,to  consecrate  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  or  to  absolve  from  sin.  This  was  the 
constant  belief  of  both  the  consecrators,  and  of  those 
that  were  consecrated  according  to  the  new  Ordinal, 
to  which  may  be  added,  that  though  they  had  held  the 
orthodox  points  above  mentioned,  they  made  use  of  a 
matter  and  form  that  was  insufficient,  and  not  capable 
Cjf  conferring  that  power,  which  essentially  belongs  to 
the  episcopal  and  sacerdotal  character  ;  and  that,  hav- 
ing at  the  same  time  no  intention  to  confer  any  orders, 
but  such  as  were  conformable  to  their  errors,  which 
were  destructive  of  Christ's  institution,  their  ordination 
was,  ipso  facto,  null  and  invalid. 

These  are  the  considerations  Dr.  Harding  and  others 
went  upon,  when  they  denied  Jewel's  character,  and  rep- 
resented the  whole  body  of  the  reformed  clergy  to  be  no 
other  than  laymen,  excepting  such  as  were  consecrated 
in  Henry  VIII  's  reign,  before  the  new  Ordinal,  or  any 
other  erroneous  ceremony  of  ordination  was  made  use 


I22     THE  ED  WAR-DINE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME 

of.  For  the  same  considerations,  the  learned  divines 
of  Queen  Mary's  reign,  nay,  the  convocation,  and  even 
the  legislative  power  in  Parliament,  declared  the  afore- 
said bishops  and  inferior  clergy  to  be  invalidly  conse- 
crated ;  and  actually  caused  all  those  to  be  re-or- 
dained, in  whom  they  found  any  essential  defect.  In 
the  following  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  divines  of 
the  Catholic  party  continued  in  the  same  opinion,  con- 
cerning the  invalidity  of  Protestant  ordinations ;  and 
all  were  re-ordained,  that  came  over  to  them,  notwith- 
standing any  pretended  consecration  among  them- 
selves— Parker's  Register,  and  the  account  there  given 
of  the  consecrators'  qualifications,  being  insignificant 
in  the  case,  where  an  essential  defect  was  alleged  in  the 
matter,  form,  and  intention  of  the  persons  deputed  to 
perform  the  ceremony."  Now,  if  to  this  \ve  add  the 
testimony  of  Perrone,  whom  no  one  will  deny  to  be  a 
theologian,  we  shall  have  gathered  for  our  readers  data 
enough  to  enable  them  to  form  their  own  judgment 
about  the  assertion,  that  no  theologian  ever  ventured 
to  reject,  as  essentially  invalid,  the  form  of  consecra- 
tion used  by  Barlow  in  the  consecration  of  Parker,  al-. 
lowing  that  he  did  go  through  the  ceremony  at  all. 
''Anglican  orders  are  deemed  null  and  void,  not  because 
they  are  conferred  by  heretics  and  schismatics,  but  on 
account  both  of  the  interruption  of  episcopal  succes- 
sion in  that  sect,  and  of  their  form  having  been  essen- 
tially vitiated  ;  ob  vitiatam  essentialiter  formam." 
(Perrone,  de  ord.,  cap.  iv.)  And  in  this  connection, 
Canon  Raynal  makes  the  important  remark  that  the 
"  Revised  Ordinal  was  rejected  by  the  Holy  See  some 
years  before  the  alleged  December  consecration  of 
Parker  by  Barlow." 


AS  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL.  l2i 

And  Rev.  Mr.  Waterworth,  in  his  historical  lectures, 
thus  refers  to  the  same  subject :  "  It  is  not  here  the 
place  to  enter  into  the  validity  of  the  orders  conferred 
by  the  new  Ordinal ;  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe  that 
it  was  composed  principally  by  men  who  considered 
ordination  an  unnecessary  rite ;  and  that  in  the  ensuing 
reign,  the  statute  authorizing  the  Ordinal  was  repealed, 
and  the  ordinations  made,  in  conformity  with  it,  reputed, 
both  by  the  bishops  and  Parliament,  invalid,  principally 
because  the  anointing  of  the  candidates,  and  the  por- 
rection  of  instruments  were  omitted,  and  that  no  form 
of  words  was  preserved  significative  of  the  orders  con- 
ferred." Yet  in  spite  of  all  this,  our  "  Old  Catholic," 
misled  by  false  teachers,  stoutly  avers  that  in  Queen 
Mary's  time  the  Pope  and  his  legate,  Cardinal  Pole,  and 
all  Catholics  judged  King  Edward's  form  of  ordination 
valid.  As  the  pains-taking  Canon  Estcourt  has  proved 
this  false,  after  thoroughly  sifting  the  whole  matter, 
and  investigating  every  particular  case,  we  refer  to  it 
again  only  to  show  from  the  true  character  and  tenor 
of  the  faculties  granted  to  Cardinal  Pole,  how  little 
those  dispensations  which  he  granted  in  virtue  of  those 
faculties,  can  be  relied  upon  to  prove  that  the  cardinal 
recognized  not  only  the  ordinations  celebrated  in  the 
schism  under  Henry  VIII.,  but  those  also  under  Edward 
VI.  The  cardinal  does,  indeed,  as  seen  in  Statutes  I 
and  2  Philip  and  Mary,  cap.  8.,  dispense  with  and  re- 
ceive in  their  orders  and  benefices  those  who  should 
return  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  "Omncs  ccclcsiasticas 
personas  *  *  *  qnee  aliquas  impetrarunt  dispensation!, 
*  *  *  tain  or  dines  quam  bcneficia  ecclesiastics,  //' 
and  or  it  ate  snprcmitatis  ccclesice  Anglicans,  licet  null  iter 
et  de  facto  obtinnerint,  ft  ad  cor  reversed  ecelesiw  u nil 'at i 


124 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME' 


rcstitutce  fuerint,  in  snis  ordinibus  et  beneficiis,  miseri- 
corditer  recipieutes,  secum  super  his  opportune  in  Domino 
dispensamus."  Yet  this  proves  nothing,  as  the  same 
author  shows,  because  only  those  are  or  could  be  re- 
ceived back  in  their  orders,  who  had  orders,  and  this  is 
apparent  from  the  tenor  of  the  faculties  which  he  re- 
ceived, and  which  he  distinctly  explains  and  interprets 
himself.  In  exercising  his  faculties,  as  well  as  in  grant- 
ing to  the  reconciled  bishops  the  extraordinary  powers 
which  as  legate  he  held,  he  expressly  distinguishes  two 
classes  of  persons,  viz.,  those  who  had  been  ordained 
during  the  schism,  even  unduly,  by  heretical  and  schis- 
matical  bishops,  yet  according  to  the  ancient  Catholic 
rite ;  and,  secondly,  those  who  held  benefices  without 
being  ordained.  The  former  were  allowed  "  to  exer- 
cise the  sacred  orders  and  the  priesthood  even,  received 
as  aforesaid  from  heretical  and  schismatical  bishops, 
even  unduly  (minus  rite),  provided  that  the  form  and 
intention  of  the  Church  had  been  preserved  ;"  the  latter 
might  be  ordained,  if  worthy,  and  retain  the  benefices 
if  otherwise  canonically  conferred,  whilst  numerous 
instances  are  adduced  to  show  that  those  latter  were 
persons  who  had  been  ordained  according  to  the  new 
rites,  and  were  acting  as  Anglican  ministers.  These,  if 
unmarried  and  otherwise  qualified,  were  to  be  ordained 
and  retain  their  benefices.  "And  thus,"  remarks  the 
canon,  "  Dr.  Elrington,  Mr.  Haddon,  Dr.  Lee,  and 
other  Anglican  writers,  have  been  entirely  mistaken  in 
referring  the  words  «  minus  rite'  to  ordinations  after  the 
Edwardine  form." 

The  fact  then  remains,  and  cannot  be  controverted, 
or  challenged,  that  the  Pope  and  cardinal  wishing  to 
facilitate  the  return  of  the  English  Church  to  Catholic 


AS  THE  ROMAN  POX  7  .FIJAL. 


125 


unity,  from  which  a  tyrannical,  lustful  king  had  vio- 
lently torn  her,  stretched  indulgence  to  the  utmost 
limit,  condoned  all  violations  of  canonical  law  and 
Church  discipline,  sanctioned  whatever  was  not  posi- 
tively against  the  substance  of  God's  holy  institutions, 
dispensed  with  irregularities,  and  absolved  from  eccle- 
siastical censures  incurred  by  receiving  holy  orders, 
'  minus  rite,'  without  canonical  sanction  and  approval 
of  the  Holy  See,  from  prelates  schismatical  and  here- 
tical, if  only  what  was  essential  to  the  validity  of  the 
sacrament  was  observed  ;  and  hence  all  the  ordinations 
in  Henry's  time  were  recognized  because  the  old  form 
according  to  the  Catholic  Pontifical  and  the  ancient 
English  liturgies  was  used.  But  not  a  single  instance 
can  be  adduced  of  the  recognition  or  sanction  of  any 
ordinations  performed  in  Edward's  time,  after  the 
adoption  of  the  new  Ordinal,  because  they  were  abso- 
lutely intrinsically  worthless,  and  no  earthly  power 
could  give  them  force  or  value,  because  the  sacramen- 
tal form  was  substantially  destroyed,  purposely  and 
wickedly  vitiated  by  men  who  sought  to  overturn  the 
whole  hierarchical  order,  by  poisoning  its  very  root,  men 
who  did  not  believe  in  the  divine  institution  of  the 
episcopate  or  priesthood,  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist 
or  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  Now,  as  we  are  not  writ- 
ing a  treatise  de  ordine,  or  de  sacrameutis  in  gcncrc,  but 
reviewing  and  exposing  sophistries  and  refuting  false 
assertions,  we  must  refer  our  readers,  wishing  further 
information  on  any  of  the  points  which  we  skim  over, 
to  the  authors  and  works  already  named,  or  to  any 
recognized  hand-book  of  theological  science  to  be 
found  in  our  Catholic  book-stores.  Having  shown  that 
we  did  not  quarrel  with  history  when  we  asserted  that 


!26     THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL  NOT  THE  SAME 

the  Popes  never  recognized  as  bishops  those  ordained 
by  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  ;  having  nailed  the  false- 
hood :  "  that  Pope  Paul  IV.,  his  legate,  Cardinal  Pole, 
and  all  the  Papal  bishops  of  England,  did  this  in  Queen 
Mary's  time,"  and  this  other:  "that  Rome  never  pre- 
tended to  doubt  the  validity  of  the  consecration  under 
the  Reformed  Ordinal,  till  she  lost  hope  of  regaining 
the  Anglican  Church  ;"  and  having,  in  our  own  opin- 
ion at  least,  shown  that  Popes,  legates,  bishops,  theo- 
logians, the  whole  Church,  constantly,  unconditionally, 
without  an  exception,  and  with  entire  unanimity,  in 
teaching  and  in  practice,  rejected  as  worthless  the  or- 
ders conferred  by  Edward's  Ordinal,  we  may  proceed 
to  discuss  our  next  point. 

"When  Dr.  Ryan  presumes  to  object  to  the  Angli- 
can formula  of  ordination,  I  have  only  to  reply  that  it 
is  the  same  which  was  used  in  England  before  the  Ref- 
ormation, and  is  essentially  the  same  on  which  his  own 
orders  depend — '  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.'  " 

Here  are  three  distinct  propositions,  all  equally  false 
and  untenable,  (i)  That  the  Anglican  formula  of  conse- 
cration is  the  same  that  was  used  in  England  before 
the  Reformation  ;  (2)  That  it  is  essentially  the  same  as 
that  on  which  Dr.  Ryan's  orders  depend  ;  and,  by  im- 
plication, at  least,  (3)  That,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  is  the  essential  formula  on  which  orders  in  the 
Catholic  Church  depend,  or  the  essential  sacramental 
form  of  ordination. 

Let  us  examine  each  of  these  propositions:  (1)  The 
Anglican  formula  of  consecration  is  the  same  that  was 
used  in  England  before  the  Reformation.  Did  not 
Edward  then  appoint  a  commission  composed  of  six 
bishops  and  six  others  learned  in  the  law  to  draw  up  a 


AS  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL. 


127 


new  Ordinal,  to  suit  and  accompany  the  new  liturgy, 
recently  compiled  and  introduced,  enforced  by  pains 
and  penalties?  Is  there  not  on  the  statute  book  of 
England,  an  act  that  reads:  "  For  as  much  as  concord 
and  unity  to  be  had  within  the  king's  majesty's  domin- 
ions, it  is  requisite  to  have  one  uniform  fashion  and 
manner  of  making  and  consecrating  of  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons,  or  ministers  of  the  Church,  be  it  therefore 
enacted,  by  the  king's  highness,  with  the  assent  of  the 
lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  the  commons  in  this 
present  Parliament  assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of 
the  same,  that  such  form  and  manner  of  making  and 
consecrating  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  and  other 
ministers  of  the  Church,  as  by  six  prelates,  and  six  other 
men  of  this  realm  learned  in  God's  law,  by  the  king's 
majesty  to  be  appointed  and  assigned,  or  by  the  most 
number  of  them,  shall  be  devised  for  that  purpose, 
shall,  by  virtue  of  this  present  act,  be  lawfully  exercised 
and  used,  and  none  other,  any  statute  or  law  or  usage 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding"?  (3  and  4  Ed.  vi.c. 
12).  Were  not  several  Catholic  bishops  who  saw  the 
tendency  and  aim  of  this  new  Ordinal,  and  the  purpose 
of  its  framers  and  compilers,  and  on  that  account  re- 
fused to  give  their  consent  or  approval  to  the  same, 
deprived  and  sent  to  the  Fleet  ?  Or,  will  any  one  dare 
to  maintain,  that  the  new  Ordinal  is  the  same  as  the 
old  ?  Why,  then  devise  a  new  one  ?  Why  did  the 
Bishops,  Tonstall,  Aldrich,  Heath,  Day  and  Thirlby 
protest  in  Parliament  against  the  commission  appointed 
to  compose  it?  Why  did  it  require  penal  laws  to  force 
the  bishops  to  use  it  ?  Why  was  Heath  punished  with 
inprisonment  for  refusing  to  approve  it? 

But  (2)  can  any  one  be  bold  enough  to  say  that  the  Or- 


1 28     THE  ED  WARDINE  ORDINAL  NO T  THE  SAME 

dinal,  composed  by  Edward's  mixed  commission,  is  the 
same  as  the  old  Sarum  Pontifical?  or  that  the  meagre, 
meaningless  formula  of  episcopal  consecration:  "Take 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  remember  that  thou  stir  up  the 
grace  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by  the  imposition  of 
hands ;  for  God  has  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but 
of  power  and  love,  and  soberness,"  is  the  same  as  that 
found  in  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  brought  from 
Rome  by  St.  Augustine  ?  "  The  traditional  forms,"  says 
Canon  Raynal,  "  brought  from  Rome  by  St.  Augustine 
in  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  are  found  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Pontificals  of  Ecgberht,  and  St.  Dunstan,  and 
can  be  traced  from  the  Roman  conquests  to  the  very 
days  of  the  impious  Cranmer. "  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his 
Eirenicon,  convicts  somebody  either  of  not  knowing 
what  he  is  talking  about,  or  deliberately  falsifying 
facts.  "  The  form  adopted  at  the  consecration  of  Arch- 
bishop Parker  was  carefully  framed  on  the  old  form 
used  in  the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Chichele  a 
century  before.  *  *  *  The  tradition  of  that  consecra- 
tion was  then  "  only  a  century  old."  Then  it  was  not 
the  formula  in  use  before  the  Reformation.  It  had 
not  been  used  for  a  whole  century.  And  Dr.  Pusey 
says  its  use  even  then  was  exceptional,  "  having  been 
resorted  to  at  a  time  when  the  English  Church  did  not 
acknowledge  either  of  the  claimants  to  the  Papacy;" 
and  that  the  form  was  wholly  different  from  that  used 
in  the  consecration  of  the  number  of  archbishops  con- 
secrated in  obedience  to  Papal  Bulls.  Dr.  Pusey's  testi- 
mony then  proves  clearly  that  the  Anglican  formula 
of  ordination  was  not  that  used  in  England  before  the 
Reformation,  but  one  whose  use  was  exceptional,  and 
he  thinks,  "  it  was  of  the  providence  of  God  that  they 


AS  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL. 


129 


had  that  precedent  to  fall  back  upon."  Now,  we  need 
not  stop  here  to  tell  our  readers.that  the  only  possible 
explanation  of  this  assertion  of  Dr.  Pusey  is,  as  Canon 
Estcourt  remarks,  that  Chichele  was  consecrated  ac- 
cording to  the  form  in  the  Roman  Pontifical,  in  which 
the  words,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum  are  found,  and  not 
according  to  the  old  English  Sarum.  Nor  need  we 
stop  to  remind  Dr.  Pusey  that  it  was  one  of  these 
claimants  to  the  Papacy,  viz.,  Gregory  XII.,  who  con- 
secrated Chichele,  bishop  of  St.  David,  in  the  year 
1408,  and  that  afterwards,  in  1414,  when  promoted  to 
the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Canterbury,  he  was  confirmed 
by  Pope  John  XXIII.  This,  by  the  way,  to  show  how 
true  it  is  that  England  did  not  recognize  the  authority 
of  the  Pope,  and  that  the  Pope  did  not  exercise  any 
jurisdiction  within  that  kingdom. 


130 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF 


X. 


THE   INSUFFICIENCY   OF   THE    EDWARDINE    ORDINAL, 
CONTINUED. 

HAVING  seen  that  the  Anglican  formula  of  ordina- 
tion is  not  the  same  as  that  used  in  England 
before  the  Reformation,  is  not  the  same  as  that  found 
in  the  Sarum  Pontifical,  or  the  Gregorian  Sacra- 
mentary  brought  from  Rome  by  St.  Augustine  and 
"  used  until  the  time  of  the  impious  Cranmer,"  we 
come  to  the  second  proposition  that  the  "Anglican 
formula  of  ordination  is  essentially  the  same  as  that 
on  which  Dr.  Ryan's  own  orders  depend,"  we  must 
remark  that  our  objections  are  to  the  formula  of 
consecration  said  to  have  been  used  by  Barlow 
in  the  consecration  of  Parker,  that  devised  by 
Edward  and  found  in  the.  Ordinal  composed  by  his 
mixed  commission.  We  do  not,  however,  wish  to  in- 
timate that  the  form  now  used  in  the  Anglican  ordina- 
tion rite,  revised,  corrected,  and  amended  as  it  has 
been,  especially  by  the'  addition  made  in  1662,  is  a 
sufficient  or  valid  form,  and  we  do  not  care  to  quarrel 
with  the  declaration  :  "  the  words  added  in  1662,  while 
they  add  something  to  the  dignity  of  the  rite,  were 
never  supposed  by  any  body  in  his  senses  to  add  any- 
thing to  its  validity."     We  only  wish  to  avoid  confusion 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL. 


131 


by  having  it  understood  that  in  the  proposition:  "The 
Anglican  formula  of  ordination  is  essentially  the  same 
as  that  on  which  Dr.  Ryan's  own  orders  depend,"  the 
Edwardine  form  is  meant,  for  to  this  alone  exceptions 
are  taken,  and  whether  the  other  is  or  is  not  valid,  is 
of  no  consequence,  since  it  came  upwards  of  one  hun- 
dred years  too  late  to  rehabilitate  or  give  force  or 
value  to  Anglican  orders.  Dr.  Pusey  is  more  candid 
and  more  correct  than  most  Anglicans,  when  he  ac- 
knowledges that  the  forms  used  when  bishops  were 
consecrated  in  obedience  to  Papal  Bulls,  were  wholly 
different  from  that  used  at  Parker's  consecration.  Now, 
as,  not  only  all  the  bishops  of  England,  from  the  in- 
troduction of  Christianity  into  the  island  were  always 
consecrated  in  obedience  to  Papal  Bulls  until  Henry, 
bullying  a  weak  and  servile  hierarchy  and  Parliament, 
ordained  that  bishops  should  be  consecrated  only  in 
obedience  to  his  royal  Bulls,  but  also,  we,  and  all  the 
Catholic  bishops  of  Christendom  of  the  Latin  rite  have 
been  consecrated  in  obedience  to  Papal  Bulls  and  by 
the  forms  found  in  the  Roman  Pontifical,  the  form  on 
which  our  orders  depend,  was,  to  say  the  least,  even 
according  to  Dr.  Pusey,  very  different  from  the  Angli- 
can formula.  Can  they  then  be  essentially  the  same  ? 
We  hold  they  are  essentially  different  and  precisely  be- 
cause purposely,  dc  industria,  Cranmer  and  his  Cal- 
vinistic  co-laborers,  in  framing  the  new  Ordinal,  modi- 
fied, altered  and  omitted  what  we  regard  as  essential 
in  the  ancient  rite,  and  thus  made  the  new,  reformed 
Ordinal,  substantially  and  essentially  at  variance  with 
the  Roman  Pontifical.  We  beg  our  friend  to  take  the 
Mechlin  edition  of  the  Roman  Pontifical,  to  which  he 
in  a  foot-note  refers,  and  which  he  presumably  has,  or 


132 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF 


if  not,  we  will  cheerfully  loan  him  the  one  now  before 
us,  and  compare  it  with  his  own  Ordinal. 

It  would  occupy  too  much  of  our  space  to 
show  all  the  points  wherein  they  differ,  even  all  es- 
sential points,  at  least,  what  we  deem  essential  points, 
and  hence  we  can  here  only  insist  that  a  careful  and 
critical  examination  of  the  Anglican  forms  of  making, 
ordaining  and  consecrating  bishops,  priests  and  dea- 
cons will  reveal  the  fact  which  the  "Question  of  An- 
glican Ordinations,"  draws  out  lengthily,  conclusively, 
viz. :  that  they  were  framed  purposely  with  a  view  of 
excluding  the  idea  of  sacramental  efficacy,  or  a  conse- 
crated character  impressed  on  the  soul.  They  recognize 
no  divine  gift  of  grace  or  power  communicated  through 
the  rite,  conferred  by  the  sacrament ;  that,  alterations, 
omissions  and  novel  additions  to  the  liturgy  and  Pon- 
tificals have  been  made  with  set  purpose  and  design  to 
introduce  the  newly  invented  doctrine  of- the  Reform- 
ers, to  destroy  the  spirit  and  sacramental  idea  of  the 
holy  rite  of  ordination.  Too  late  the  schismatical 
Bishops,  Heath,  Day  and  Tonstall  perceived — what 
Gardiner  and  Bonner  had  realized  from  the  start — that 
Cranmer  was  bent  on  the  destruction  of  the  English 
hierarchy,  the  divine  institution  of  the  priesthood  and 
the  holy  sacrifice,  by  tampering  with  the  form  of  the 
sacrament  of  the  Holy  Orders  ;  and  they  protested 
against  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  devise  a 
new  form  of  consecrating  and  ordaining  bishops,  priests, 
deacons  and  other  ministers.  "The  commission,  how- 
ever," says  Canon  Raynal,  "  obtained  the  sanction  of 
the  Great  Seal  for  their  newly  devised  forms,  and  with- 
out further  trouble  forced  them  upon  the  bishops. 
This  was  in  sober  truth   the  dismantling  of  the  f  m- 


THE  EDWARD1NE  ORDINAL. 


133 


tress."  In  the  form  of  ordination  to  the  priesthood : 
"there  is  no  indication  of  looking  for  a  gift  of  grace 
peculiar  to  the  order,  nor  for  any  interior  con- 
secration, nor  for  any  special  power  of  priesthood  ; 
such  a  gift  of  grace  as  communicated  through 
the  imposition  of  hands,  is  unasked  for,  unrecog- 
nized, unknown  ;  it  is  completely  ignored.  Those 
parts  of  the  ancient  Catholic  rite  which  indicated  such 
grace  are  omitted,  and  the  portions  of  the  ceremony 
still  retained  are  so  changed  as  to  exclude  any  such 
idea.  The  forms  and  phrases  used  are  either  new,  or 
else  applied  in  a  sense  quite  different  from  that  under- 
stood by  the  Catholic  Church."  In  the  Edwardine  form 
of  consecrating  bishops,  "  the  few  slight  phrases  of  the 
Pontifical  that  are  preserved,  show  that  the  compilers 
had  the  ancient  form  before  them,  and  that  while 
keeping  up  a  pretence  of  the  same  thing,  they  delib- 
erately altered  it,  in  order  to  reduce  it  to  the  Lutheran 
and  Zuinglian  notions  of  a  mere  admission  to  an  of- 
fice and  a  trial  before  a  congregation."  "  There  is  no 
mention  of  the  functions  of  a  bishop,  as  in  the  Pontifi- 
cal, '  Episcopum  oportet  judicare,  interpretari  consecrare, 
confirmarc,  ordinare,  offwreei  baptizare.'  The  functions 
alluded  to  in  the  nesfr  Ordinal  are,  '  to  govern,  to  in- 
struct, to  teach,  and  exnort,  to  convince  gainsayers,  to 
drive  away  erroneous  doctrine,  to  correct  and  punish' 
though  in  1662,  '  to  ordain'  was  added.  But  as  it  stood 
at  first,  there  was  no  allusion  to  administering  any  sac- 
rament, or  to  anything  requiring  the  power  of  order." 
Again,  as  a  proof  that  the  Anglican  form  of  conse- 
crating is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  Roman  Pontifi- 
cal, please  to  note  the  very  serious  and  essential  omis- 
sion in  the  former  of  the  two  prayers  of  the  Pontifical 


134 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF 


having  special  reference  to  the  grace  of  the  episcopal 
order:  "Be  propitious,  O  Lord,  to  our  supplications, 
and  turning  over  on  this  thy  servant  the  horn  (that 
is,  abundance,  or  plenitude)  of  sacerdotal  grace,  pour 
out  to  him  the  power  of  thy  benediction."  "  And 
therefore  grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  O  Lord,  to  this,  thy 
servant,  whom  Thou  hast  chosen  unto  the  ministry  of 
the  High  Priesthood.  *  *  *  Complete,  O  Lord,  in 
thy  priest  the  sum  (or  perfection)  of  thy  ministry."  In 
fact,  as  Canon  Estcourt  remarks,  whilst  "  certain  ex- 
pressions are  retained  and  taken  from  the  prayer  an- 
ciently called  '  Consecration  every  phrase  that  expresses 
a  divine  power,  an  authority  coming  from  God,  a 
sacramental  efficacy,  is  studiously  omitted.  There  is 
no  prayer  for  the  gift  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  nor  of  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  nor 
of  the  episcopal  chair  to  rule  the  Church  and  people 
committed  to  him.  Almighty  God  is  not  asked  to  be 
his  authority,  his  power,  his  firmness.  He  is  to  be 
ready  to  preach  the  gospel  and  glad  tidings  of  recon- 
cilement ;  but  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  is  not 
given  to  him.  He  is  to  be  the  faithful  and  wise  ser- 
vant giving  the  Lord's  family  meat  in  due  season,  but 
not  one  whom  God  sets  over  his  family.  Even  '  the 
power  which  Thou  dost  bestow'  (as  the  Pontifical  has 
it),  is  changed  into  '  the  authority  given  him,'  leaving 
the  source  of  the  authority  untold.  And  when  we 
look  back  in  order  to  know  what  the  authority  is,  we 
find  only,  '  such  authority  as  ye  have  by  God's  word, 
and  as  to  you  shall  be  committed  by  the  ordinance 
of  this  realm.'  Thus  the  prayer  is  only  for  grace  to 
fulfil  certain  duties,  and  it  does  not  ask  for,  nor  recog- 
nize  any   sacramental  gift   whatever."     And    this    is 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL. 


135 


just  what  we  might  expect  from  the  well  known,  and 
often  and  publicly  avowed  sentiments  of  the  compil- 
ers of  the  Ordinal.  This  ought  to  be  more  than 
enough  to  show  that  the  formula  of  ordination  of  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal,  on  which  hang  the  validity  of 
Parker's  consecration,  and  the  orders  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  is  not  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Roman  Pontifical,  on  which  depend  Catholic  orders. 
But  (3),  as  some  seem  to  regard  nothing  as  es- 
sential but  the  words  :  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost," 
we  will  now  try  to  prove  that  this  proposition  is  as  false 
and  untenable  as  the  other  two  ;  that  "  Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost, w  cannot  be  the  sole  essential  form  of 
episcopal  consecration.  One  simple  syllogism  should 
be  enough  to  settle  this  point.  That  cannot  be  the 
sole  essential  form  of  consecration,  which  was  not 
known  in  the  Church,  used  in  ordination  of  a  bishop, 
or  found  in  any  Pontifical  earlier  than  the  13th  century. 
But  the  formula,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost"  was  not 
known  in  the  rite  of  episcopal  ordination,  and  is  not 
found  in  any  Pontifical  or  Sacramentary  earlier  than  the 
13th  century,  therefore  it  cannot  be  the  sole  essential 
form  of  consecration.  Some  one,  then,  has  been  again 
misled  by  his. usual  blind  guides.  Mason,  an  author- 
ity for  our  friend,  admits  the  necessity  of  a  sacramental 
form  in  Holy  Order,  and  that,  for  the  validity  of  this 
form,  its  words  should  denote  the  special  order  con- 
ferred and  the  power  given.  But  the  words,  "  Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  do  not  express  the  special  office, 
order  or  power  conferred,  therefore  they  cannot  be  the 
sole  sacramental  form  of  episcopal  consecration.  Yet, 
with  strange  inconsistency,  and  a  boldness  of  assertion 
and  disregard  of  logic,  worthy  even  of  some  one  whom 


136 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF 


we  know,  he  gravely  maintains,  that :  "  If  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  be  the  sole  essential  matter  of  the  epis- 
copate (as  all  theologians  are  agreed  that  the  words 
which  are  pronounced  whilst  the  matter  is  used,  con- 
stitute the  form),  the  words  lAccipc  Spiritmn  Sanc- 
tum,' (Receive  the  Holy  Ghost)  must  be  the  sole 
essential  form,  and  as  these,  are  found  in  the  Edwardine 
form,  the  bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church  must  be  true 
bishops."  Hereupon  Canon  Raynal  remarks :  "  Mason 
evidently  did  not  know  the  fact  that  the  words  'Accipc 
Spiritum  Sanctum,  were  comparatively  a  recent  ad- 
dition to  the  episcopal  form,  and  being  a  recent  addition, 
could  not  be  the  sole  essential  form.  Otherwise  the  epis- 
copate was  never  validly  conferred  during  a  thousand 
years."  And  referring  to  the  illogical  conclusion  which 
Mason  draws  from  his  incorrect  premises,  Dr.  Champ- 
ney  says :  "  It  is  a  marvel  to  me,  that  he  should  so 
peremptorily  say,  that  their  bishops  are  ordained  with 
true  matter  and  form.  But  he  doth  well  to  be  bold  in 
affirming,  for  a  good  face  sometimes  helpeth  out  an 
ill  game." 

Many  other  reasons  might  be  assigned  why  these 
words,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  they  are  found 
in  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  cannot  be  the  sole  essential 
or  sufficient  form  of  episcopal  consecration.  They  do 
not  indicate  the  order  or  express  the  distinctive  char- 
acter or  power  of  the  episcopacy ;  they  are  vague  and 
indeterminate ;  they  are  used  alike,  and  with  equal 
fitness  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop,  a  priest  and  a 
deacon;  and  in  the  form  used  in  the  Anglican  Churchy 
until  1662,  when  Cosin  and  others  thought  fit  to  make 
the  change,  there  was  not  a  syllable  in  the  form  for 
consecrating  bishops  to  determine  which  order  it  was 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL. 


137 


intended  to  confer.  In  fact  it  is,  as  Dr.  Milner  observes, 
"just  as  proper  for  the  ceremony  of  confirming  or  lay- 
ing hands  upon  children  as  for  conferring  the  powers 
of  the  episcopacy."  But  let  us  see  how  our  Buffalo 
critic  maintains  the  sufficiency  of  this  form,  "Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  As  these  were,"  he  argues, 
"  the  only  words  used  by  Christ  Himself  in  giving  the 
Apostolic  commission,  it  may  be  well  asked,  what  more 
can  be  needed  to  continue  it  ?"  Here,  indeed,  is  some- 
thing to  astonish  us  !  "As  these  were  the  only  words 
used  by  Christ  Himself  in  giving  the  Apostolic  com- 
mission" ! !  Surely,  he  must  have  written  that  sen- 
tence for  us,  poor  benighted  Papists,  who  are  not  al- 
lowed to  read  our  Bibles!  or  he  could  not  have  haz- 
arded such  an  assertion.  However,  not  trusting  our 
memory  in  opposition  to  so  positive  an  affirmation,  we 
turn  to  the  holy  gospel  to  verify  what  sounds 
strangely  to  us.  Opening  the  gospel  according  to  St. 
Matthew,  we  find  no  mention  of  these  words,  but  we 
do  find  our  Lord  giving  the  Apostolical  commission 
with  authority  to  teach,  and  baptize,  and  discharge  all 
the  functions  consequent  thereon  in  the  well-known 
words:  "All  power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations;  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and  behold 
lam  with  you  all  days,  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
(Matt,  xxviii.  18,  et  seq.)  Most  interpreters  would 
take  these  words  as  giving  the  Apostolic  commission 
and  assuring  its  perpetuity. 

Coming  next  to  St.  Mark's  gospel,  we  again  search 
in  vain  for  the  words,  which,  we  are  told,  are  the  only 


138  THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF 

ones  used  by  Christ  in  giving  the  Apostolic  commission. 
We  do,  indeed,  'find  such  words  as  these  :  "  Go  ye  into 
the  whole  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  but 
he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned."  (Mark 
xvi.,  15,  16.)  Once  more  we  turn  to  St.  Luke,  and 
still  find  no  trace  of  these  words,  though  the  risen 
Saviour  declares  to  His  Apostles  that  "penance  and 
the  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  His  name 
among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem,  and  ye 
are  witnesses  of  these  things.  And  I  send  the  prom- 
ise of  my  Father  upon  you."  (Luke  xxiv.,  47,  48, 
49.)  In  the  gospel  according  to  St.  John  we  find  the 
world's  Redeemer  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  entering 
where  the  disciples  were  gathered  together:  "  He  said 
therefore  to  them  again :  Peace  be  to  you  :  as  the 
Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.  When  He  had 
said  this  He  breathed  on  them  and  said  'to  them  :  Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  ye  shall  forgive 
they  are  forgiven  them,  and  whose  sins  ye  shall  retain 
they  are  retained."  (John  xx.,  21,  22,  23.)  Now  how 
can  the  man  say  in  the  face  of  an  intelligent  Bible- 
reading  community  that,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  were  the  only  words  used  by  Christ,  in  giving 
the  Apostolic  commission  ?  He  gave  hjs  apostles  their 
commission  when  he  bade  them  go  teach  all  nations, 
preach  the  gospel,  and  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He 
gave  them  power  and  authority  to  fulfil  this  commis- 
sion, when  He  sent  them,  as  He  had  been  sent  by  His 
Father  ;  He  breathed  into  their  souls  the  grace  and 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  enable  them  to  execute 
and  perpetuate  the  divine  commission  until  the  end  of 


THE  EDWARDINE  ORDINAL. 


1 39 


time,  and  He  clearly  intimates  among  the  duties  and 
powers  contained  in  the  commission,  and  communi- 
cated to  them  by  the  same,  the  duty  and  power  of 
forgiving  sin  in  His  name,  "whose  sins  ye  shall  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven  them  ;  and  whose  sins  ye  shall  retain 
they  are  retained."  Surely,  no  man  with  this  page  of 
the  gospel  open  before  him,  can  say  that  "  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  were  the  only  words  spoken  by  our 
Lord  when  commissioning  His  Apostles,  or  that  these, 
more  than  the  other  words  spoken  on  the  same  occa- 
sion, were  intended  by  the  Saviour  as  the  essential 
form  of  the  sacrament  of  orders  or  the  rite  of  ordina- 
tion by  which  that  commission  was  to  be    continued. 


140 


THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 


XL 

DISCREPANCIES  BETWEEN  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 
THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD,  CONTINUED. 

IN  establishing  our  thesis  that  the  form  of  consecra- 
tion by  which  Barlow  is  said  to  have  consecrated 
Parker,  was  altogether  an  insufficient  and  invalid  form, 
invalidating  all  the  orders  in  the  Anglican  Church,  we 
have  had  to  meet  and  disprove  the  assertions:  (i)that 
such- was  the  form  used  in  England  before  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  (2)  that  it  is  substantially  identical  with  the  form 
of  the  Pontifical  by  which  we  ourselves  were  con- 
recrated ;  (3)  that  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  es- 
sential and  the  only  essential  form  of.  episcopal  conse- 
cration ;  and  that  these  were  the  only  words  used  by 
Christ  in  giving  the  Apostolic  commission.  How  very 
unwarranted  and  untenable  these  assertions  are  must 
be  apparent  to  every  reader  who  has  followed  up  the  dis- 
cussion, and  what  amazes  us  is  that  such  totally 
groundless  assertions  could  have  been  published  by 
any  one  pretending  to  historical  and  ecclesiastical 
knowledge.  But  there  is  really  no  limit  to  boldness 
of  assertion,  and  in  the  interest  of  truth,  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  simple  and  unwary  who  may  have  no 
chance  of  examining  or  ever  seeing  any  Catholic 
authors,  we  must  still  further  follow  up  and  expose  the 
errors,  falsehoods,  and    fallacies   of   this  writer,  pub- 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


141 


lished  here,  on  the  subject  of  the  Ordinal  of  Edward 
and  the  Roman  Pontifical.     Thus  he  writes: 

"  His  (our)  own  Pontifical  is  certainly  less  explicit 
on  this  point  (of  the  form)  than  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  ; 
for  while  in  both  we  have  the  formula,  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,  there  is  nothing  more  in  the  Pontifical ; 
while  the  Ordinal  goes  on  with  the  very  words  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  a  bishop,  thus  defining  the  precise 
charisma  bestowed  by  the  laying  on  of  hands."  We 
are  inclined  to  ask,  at  reading  the  above  extracts,  that, 
The  Pontifical  is  less  explicit  than  the  Ordinal  of 
Edward,  and  that  :  In  the  Pontifical  there  is  nothing  more 
than  the  bare  words,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  the 
gentleman  ever  seen  or  read  the  Pontifical  published  at 
Mechlin,  to  which  he  refers  ?  If  he  has,  he  either  does 
not  understand  its  language,  and  has  merely  copied 
second-hand  statements  of  false  teachers,  or  he  is,  in 
bad  faith,  trying  to  deceive  those  who  perhaps  will  never 
have  an  opportunity  of  seeing  a  Pontifical.  Is  that 
fair  and  honest  in  a  minister  of  religion  ?  We  are  then 
tempted  to  quote  here  the  most  beautiful  and  appro- 
priate prayers  of  .the  Pontifical  which  immediately 
follow  the  "  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum," "  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  prayers  that  really  determine  and  express 
the  order  of  the  episcopacy,  the  plenitude  of  the  priest- 
hood, the  High  Priesthood,  the  sum  or  completeness 
and  perfection  of  the  ministry,  figured  in  the  Levitical 
law  by  the  priesthood  of  Aaron ;  prayers  which  ac- 
tually and  explicitly  define — what  the  vague  and  un- 
meaning form  of  Edward's  Ordinal  positively  does  not 
— the  special  graces  and  precise  charisma  bestowed  by 
the  laying-  on  of  hands.  Though  somewhat  lengthy,  these 
beautiful   prayers   of   the   ordination    service  in    the 


142  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

Pontifical  will  well  repay  a  perusal,  and,  more  forci- 
bly than  any  words  of  ours,  they  will  evince  how 
utterly  unreliable  is  our  Buffalo  controversialist. 

"  Be  propitious,  O  Lord,  to  our  supplications,  and 
as  the  horn  of  sacerdotal  grace  is  outpoured  upon 
these  Thy  servants,  do  Thou  send  down  upon  them 
the  strength  of  Thy  blessing.     Through,"  etc. 

"  O  God  of  all  honors,  God  of  all  dignities  which  in 
sacred  Order  minister  to  Thy  glory;  O  God,  in  the 
secret  and  familiar  converse  with  Thy  servant,  Moses, 
amongst  other  directions  for  Divine  worship,  Thou 
didst  prescribe  also  the  forms  of  the  priestly  attire, 
and  didst  command  Aaron,  Thy  elect,  to  be  vested  in 
mystic  robes  when  offering  sacrifice;  in  order  that, pos- 
terity might  hereafter  derive  knowledge  from  the 
usages  of  the  ancients,  and  the  instruction  of  doctrine 
might  not  fail  at  any  time.  Mere  symbolism  won  rever- 
ence amongst  those  of  old,  but  to  us  realities  were  to 
be  more  familiar  than  mystic  figures.  Thus  the  attire 
of  the  ancient  priesthood  is  a  symbol  of  the  adornment 
of  our  mind,  and  it  is  no  longer  the  honor  of  garment, 
but  beauty  of  soul,  that  renders  Pontifical  glory  com- 
mendable unto  us.  Yea,  even  in  former  times,  they 
looked  more  to  the  mystic  significance  of  things  than 
to  the  pleasure  they  gave  the  carnal  sight.  Where- 
fore, O  Lord,  we  beseech  Thee  to  bestow  Thy  grace 
upon  these,  Thy  servants,  whom  Thou  hast  chosen  to 
the  ministry  of  the  High  Priesthood,  that  whatsoever 
was  signified  in  those  garments  by  the  brightness  of 
gold,  the  splendor  of  gems,  and  the  variety  of  em- 
broidery, may  shine  forth  in  their  lives  and  in  their 
actions.  Perfect  in  Thy  priests  the  fulness  of  Thy 
ministry  ;  clothe  them  with  every  adornment  of  glory, 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


1 43 


and  sanctify  them  with  the  outpouring  of  heavenly 
unguent.  May  it.  0  Lord,  flow  abundantly  upon  their 
heads,  may  it  bedew  their  lips,  and  overspread  their 
whole  frame,  that  the  strength  of  Thy  Spirit  may  in- 
wardly replenish  them,  and  clothe  them  outwardly. 
Let  steadfast  faith,  pure  love,  and  sincere  peace  abound 
in  them. 

"  Place  them  in  the  Episcopal  Chair  to  rule  Thy 
Church  and  the  whole  of  Thy  people.  Be  Thou  unto 
them  authority,  power,  and  strength ;  multiply  upon 
them  Thy  blessing  and  Thy  grace,  that,  rendered  worthy 
by  Thy  bounty  to  invoke  Thy  name,  they  may  also  be- 
come holy  through  Thy  grace.     Through,"  etc. 

These  prayers  of  the  Pontifical  are  identical  with 
those  of  the  Leonine  Sacramentary,  so  called  from 
Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great,  who  sat  in  the  chair  of  Peter, 
A.  D.  440-461,  to  whom  they  are  attributed.  Even 
if  he  be  not  the  author,  for  some  seem  to  question  it, 
the  Sacramentary  that  bears  his  name  is  the  oldest 
liturgical  work  extant  in  the  Church  either  East  or 
West,  and  antedates  by  centuries  the  liturgies  con- 
taining the  words,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;" 
which,  though  now  an  integral  part  of  the  form  of  con- 
secration, are  comparatively  of  recent  origin.  Courayer 
himself  admits  that  the  form  "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  not  observed  for  many  ages  in  the  primitive 
Church."  It  is  strange,  then,  but  true,  as  a  contem- 
porary author  remarks,  that  "the  Reformers,  pretend- 
ing to  go  back  to  ancient  rites,  were  misled  by  a  blind 
adherence  to  their  Popish  doctors,  the  mediaeval 
schoolmen,  who  taught  that  the  imperative  form  of 
ordination,  and  the  delivery  of  the  instruments  were 
essential  and  of  more  importance  than  the  prayers 


144 


THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 


from  the  ancient  Sacramentaries.  This  seems  like  a 
retribution  for  their  unauthorized  and  sacrilegious 
meddling  with  the  sacred  traditions  of  the  Church." 
But  as  we  have  transcribed  the  prayers  of  the  Pontifi- 
cal which  are  most  commonly  regarded  as  the  form  of 
episcopal  consecration,  and  as  we  have  been  speaking 
of  the  Anglican  form  devised  by  Edward  VI.,  and  re- 
vised and  augmented  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  we 
will  now  place  the  latter  in  juxtaposition  before  our 
readers,  that  they  may  compare  them  with  one  another, 
and  with  the  prayers  of  the  Pontifical  given  above : 
Form  of  consecrating  Bishops     Form  of  consecration  amended 


devised  by  Edward  VI., 
in  1549. 

"Take  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  remember  that  thou 
stir  up  the  grace  of  God, 
which  is  in  thee  by  the 
imposition  of  hands;  for 
God  has  not  given  us 
the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of 
power,  and  love  and  sober- 
ness." 


by  convocation  in  1662. 

"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
for  the  office  and  work  of 
a  bishop  in  the  Church 
of  God,  committed  unto 
thee  by  the  imposition  of 
our  hands;  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son.  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  remember 
that  thou  stir  up  the  grace 
of  God,  which  is  given 
thee,  by  this  imposition 
of  our  hands ;  for  God 
hath  not  given  us  the 
spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power 
and  love  and  soberness." 
"But  the  Ordinal,"  says  the  writer,  "goes  on  with 
the  very  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  a  bishop."  This 
again  is  disingenuous  and  deceitful.     These  words  crc 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


145 


simply  the  admonition  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  to  stir 
up  the  grace  of  God  which  he  had  already  received, 
and  though  they  prove,  as  Catholic  divines  teach,  that 
grace  is  conferred  in  the  sacrament  of  orders,  and  that, 
consequently,  it  has  one  of  the  necessary  conditions  or 
requisites  of  a  sacrament  of  the  new  law,  viz. :  the  con- 
ferring of  grace,  they  do  not  define  the  precise  charisma 
bestowed  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  /  they  do  not  indicate 
the  communication  of  the  episcopal  character,  the  con- 
ferring of  the  episcopal  order;  they  are  consequently 
insufficient,  and  the  form  is  still,  in  spite  of  them,  an 
invalid  form.  "Do  these  words,  then," we  are  asked, 
"  detract  from  grace?"  Not  at  all.  Who  ever  said  or 
even  insinuated  that  they  did? 

But  he  continues  :  "  The  words  added  in  1662,  while 
they  add  something  to  the  dignity  of  the  rite,  were 
never  supposed  by  anybody  in  his  senses  to  add  any- 
thing to  its  validity."  Transeat,  we  are  certainly  under 
no  obligation  to  defend  the  validity  of  the  new  rite, 
but  mark  now  the  sophisty :  "  If  the  lack  of  them  (the 
words  added  in  1662)  deprives  the  older  Ordinal  of 
validity,  then  the  same  lack  must  deprive  Catholic  con- 
secration of  validity."  That  there  was  a  lack  of  some- 
thing essential-  in  the  Edwardine  form  was  apparent 
from  the  commencement  to  all  who  believed  in  the 
divine  institution  of  the  episcopate  and  the  sacra- 
mental character  of  Holy  Orders.  The  reformers  were 
upbraided  by  the  Catholics  and  Puritans  alike  with  the 
insufficiency  of  the  new  rite  to  establish  episcopacy. 
The  Catholics  openly  accused  the  compilers  of  a  design 
to  blot  out  the  episcopacy  as  a  divine  vocation  con- 
ferring, jure  divino,  special  powers,  and  imparting 
special  graces,  of  making  bishops  merely  "  ecclesastical  v 


1^6  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

sheriffs,"  subject  to  the  orders  and  bidding  of  the  king, 
levelling  down  all  the  different  orders  of  the  hierarchy, 
thus  abolishing  all  distinction  between  bishops  and 
priests  by  making  no  essential  difference  in  the  form 
of  ordaining  both.  "  In  nothing,"  says  Dr.  Milner, 
"  does  Cranmer's  spirit  of  Presbyterianism  appear  so 
plain  as  in  his  form  of  consecrating  bishops."  Thus, 
we  see  the  Edwardi.ne  form,  by  the  express  design  of  its 
framers,  actually  did  what  the  Pope  and  Catholic  divines 
are  falsely  accused  of  doing,  viz. :  it  destroyed  the  epis- 
copal order,  and  the  Presbyterians  of  the  17th  century 
protested  against  Anglican  bishops  being  admitted  into 
the  House  of  Lords,  to  which  they  had  no  more  right, 
they  maintained,  than  their  own  ministers,  and  they 
called  on  the  Anglican  Church  to  disavow  all  episcopal 
rights  and  privileges,  "  since  iti  the  ordination  of  her 
clergy,  she  invariably  used  forms  which  established  no 
distinction  between  the  episcopate  a?id  the  priesthood." 
The  Kirk  of  Scotland  openly  asserted  the  existence  of 
bishops  in  the  Anglican  Church  to  be  incompatible  with 
the  use  of  forms  destructive  of  the  episcopate.  Bishop 
Burnet  acknowledges  in  his  "  History  of  the  Reforma- 
tion," that  in  Edward's  Ordinal  "  there  was  no  express 
mention  made  in  the  ordination  of  a  priest  and  a  bishop 
of  any  words  to  determine  that  it  was  to  the  one  or  the 
other  office  the  person  was  ordained,  and  that  this 
having  been  made  use  of  to  prove  both  functions  the 
same,  and  that  the  Church  esteemed  them  one  order, 
the  form  was  altered  of  late  years  as  it  is  now."  There' 
was  then  felt  to  be  a  lack  of  something  in  the  Edwardine 
form,  and  Bishop  Cosin  and  his  associates  in  convocation 
in  1662  undertook  to  supply  what  was  lacking. 
Whether  it  was  with  a  view  to  silence  the  clamors  of 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


H7 


the  Dissenters,  or  to  meet  the  objections  of  the  Catho- 
lics, or  to  quiet  the  scruples  of  Anglican  bishops  of  the 
Laudian  school,  who,  after  the  restoration  of  the  Stuart 
king,  and  after  having  been  brought  during  a  foreign 
exile  in  contact  with  Catholic  bishops,  had  conceived 
other  and  truer  notions  of  their  own  dubious  orders,  is 
of  little  consequence  to  us  or  to  our  argument,  though 
it  looks  a  little  suspicious,  that  convocation  regarded 
the  change  as  something  more  than  merely  adding  to 
the  dignity  of  the  rite. 

All  the  circumstances  of  that  change  taken  together 
and  duly  considered,  there  is  no  doubt  in  our  mind  that 
convocation  aimed  at  supplying  essential  defects  in- 
validating the  form,  pointed  out  by  Catholic  divines, 
and  especially  by  a  learned  convert  from  Protestantism, 
Rev.  John  Lewgar,  in  a  polemical  work  styled  "Erastus 
Senior,"  published  precisely  at  the  time  of  the  sitting 
of  convocation.  We  conclude  then  with  Dr.  Kenrick 
that,  "  If  the  forms  devised  by  Edward  VI.  were  suffi- 
cient, the  convocation  of  1662,  by  changing  them,  es- 
pecially in  those  points  in  which  their  validity  had  been 
assailed,  inflicted  a  wound  on  the  character  of  English 
orders,  which  it  will  be  extremely  difficult  to  heal  or 
remove.  If  the  forms  of  Edward  VI.  were  not  suffi- 
cient, the  change  came  one  hundred  and  three  years 
too  late  !  Hence,  whichever  opinion  be  adopted,  the 
validity  of  English  orders  has  been  most  seriously  com- 
promised by  those  who  should  have  maintained  it." 
But  now,  please  to  note  this  style  of  argumentation  : 
"  If  the  lack  of  these  words  deprives  the  older  Ordinal 
of  validity,  then  the  same  lack  must  deprive  Catholic 
consecration  of  validity."  What  wonderful  logical  acu- 
men.    Who  would  ever  think  of  asserting  that  it  was 


I48  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

the  lack  of  these  words,  added  in  1662,  which  rendered 
the  older  Ordinal  insufficient,  and  the  Edwardine  form 
invalid  :  and  that  because  these  precise  words,  which 
Bishop  Cosin  and  his  brethren  in  convocation  devised  to 
remedy  the  defects  of  their  jejune  form  of  conse- 
cration are  not  found  in  the  Roman  Pontifical,  there- 
fore, all  consecrated  by  that  old  and  venerable  liturgy 
which  dates  back  for  centuries  before  Cosin  lived,  or 
Cranmer  apostatized,  or  king  and  Parliament  arrogated 
to  themselves  the  right  or  power  to  establish  the 
''manner  of  making  and  consecrating  of  bishops, 
priests,"  etc.,  are  not  validly  consecrated.  There  was 
indeed  a  lack,  and  a  patent  and  fatal  lack,  in  the  form 
of  Edward's  Ordinal,  but  that  lack  originated  precisely 
because  Cranmer  and  his  co-laborers,  appointed  and  au- 
thorized by  act  of  Parliament  to  establish  "  a  uniform 
fashion  and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating 
bishops,"  changed  and  modified  and  adulterated  the 
form  of  the  Pontifical,  and  the  old  English  liturgies, 
of  Sarum,  York,  Lincoln  and  Bangor,  and  omitted 
in  their  new  Ordinal  the  prayers  and  form  of  the 
Roman  Pontifical,  already  cited,  containing  what  all 
Catholic  antiquity  regarded  as  essential  to  valid  or- 
dination. It  is  indeed  too  funny  for  anything,  to  be 
told  that  we,  with  the  traditional  forms  and  liturgies 
of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  earliest  ages,  cannot 
have  what  is  essential  to  a  valid  ordination,  and  what 
is  lacking  in  Cranmer's  forms,  because,  forsooth,  we  have 
not  inserted  in  our  Pontifical,  Cosin's  corrected  and  en- 
larged forms,  or  the  words  added  in  1662  to  the  Angli- 
can Ordinal.  We  are  again  asked,  whether  we  are  ig- 
norant that  "  the  Roman  Pontifical  is  modern  in  many 
particulars,  and  has  been  often  changed?" 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


149 


The  Roman  Pontifical  is  that  of  Clement  VIII.  and 
Urban  VIII.,  revised,  as  we  read  on  its  title  page,  and 
corrected  by  the  illustrious  and  learned  Benedict  XIV., 
with  additions  approved  by  the  Sacred  Congregation 
of  Rites.  Benedict  XIV.  was  born  in  1685,  and  elected 
Pope  in  1740,  and  consequently  the  authorized  edition 
of  the  Roman  Pontifical  is  comparatively  modern.  But 
we  also  know  that  if  at  times  the  Church  authorizes  a 
new  edition  of  her  pontifical  and  liturgical  works,  and 
adds  some  words,  and  prayers,  such  as,  for  instance. 
"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  we  have  shown  to 
be  a  comparatively  modern  addition,  authorized,  and 
made  by  the  sanction  and  approval  of  the  Church  an 
integral  part  of  the  form,  or  if  she  omits  some  prayers 
and  forms  of  blessing  that  have  fallen  into  desuetude, 
and  thus  adapts  her  ritual  to  the  wants  and  present 
discipline  of  the  Church,  it  is  not  at  the  dictation  of  a 
boy-king,  or  in  obedience  to  a  Somerset  and  a  War- 
wick; it  is  not  in  virtue  of  an  act  of  Parliament  en- 
forced by  pains  and  penalties,  or  through  an  acknowl- 
edged necessity,  because  her  liturgy  was  deemed  in- 
sufficient for  the  valid  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, rendering  her  orders  doubtful,  her  ministrations 
unsafe,  her  hierarchy  insecure.  We  know,  and  this  lets 
out  the  venom  of  the  charge,  that,  whatever  changes, 
additions  or  omissions  have  thus  been  made  by  her  in 
virtue  of  her  own  divine  right,  under  warrant  and 
sanction  of  her  God-given  authority,  as  a  perfect  spir- 
itual society  having  power  to  regulate  her  own  disci- 
pline, manage  her  own  internal  affairs,  and  to  enact  her 
own  laws,  they  have  never  affected  the  substance  of 
the  sacraments,  have  never  materially  or  substantially 
altered  the  sacramental  forms.  We  hold  with  Benedict 


150  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

XIV.,  and  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  Christ  has  given 
to  his  Church  power  to  ordain  or  change  any  rites  or 
ceremonies  in  the  dispensation  of  the  sacraments  that 
do  not  affect  their  substance,  salva  illoram  substantia, 
but  that  may  contribute  to  the  edification  of  the  peo- 
ple, the  utility  of  the  recipient,  or  the  veneration  and 
dignity  of  the  sacraments  themselves.  The  matter 
and  form  appertain  to  the  substance  of  the  sacraments, 
and  therefore  the  matter  and  form  are  invariable,  and 
the  Roman  Pontifical  of  to-day  is  substantially  iden- 
tical, as  to  the  matter  and  form  of  Holy  Orders,  with 
the  Leonine,  Gelasian  and  Gregorian  Sacramentaries, 
with  the  old  English  Pontificals,  and  with  the  Orien- 
tal liturgies.  King  Edward's  Ordinal  on  the  contrary  is 
substantially  different  from  all  these,  and  therefore  we 
say :  Please,  dear  sir,  to  redeem  the  pledge  given  in 
these  bantering  terms  :  "  His  (our)  most  learned  Cath- 
olic authors  can  construct  no  argument  in  behalf  of 
the  Pontifical's  present  form,  which  does  not  equally 
cover  our  case.  This  I  am  prepared  to  show  him  at 
large  when  he  presents  me  with  such  an  argument." 
We  flatter  ourselves  that  we  have  presented  such  an 
argument,  but  we  beg  the  gentleman  not  to  refer  us,  as 
he  seems  inclined  to  do,  to  his  ordinary  authorities  for 
reasons  already  stated,  and  which  may  be  found  more 
at  large  in  chap,  viii.,  "  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI.,"  by 
Dom.  Wilfrid  Raynal,  O.S.B.  We  want  facts,  argu- 
ments and  historic  documents,  and  if  we  refer  to  and 
use  freely,  both  with  and  without  acknowledgment, 
Catholic  authors,  particularly^  Kenrick,  Estcourt  and 
Raynal,  we  wish  our  readers  to  attach  importance  or 
weight  to  their  writings  only  as  they  find  their  argu- 
ments convincing,  their  reasonings  conclusive,  their  con- 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


151 


elusions  irresistible,  their  assertions  warranted  by  the 
records  of  history,  their  facts  undeniable.  We  have, 
perhaps,  spun  out  too  lengthily  this  point  of  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  and  invalidity  of  An- 
glican orders,  but  the  vital  importance  of  the  subject 
must  be  our  apology. 

We  are  anxious  to  conclude  this  question  of  Ang- 
lican orders,  on  which  we  have  expatiated  at  much 
greater  length  than  we  originally  designed,  but  the 
subject  grew  on  us  insensibly,  especially  as  we  were  in 
some  sort  forced  into  the  discussion  of  several  questions 
in  order  to  expose  and  refute  theological  blunderings, 
historical  inaccuracies,  erroneous  statements  and 
unscrupulous  falsifications  of  facts,  connected  with  the 
matter  in  dispute.  We  need  hardly  notice  again  what 
we  find  again  so  positively,  yet  so  falsely  asserted  and 
reiterated  :  "  The  words  added  in  our  Ordinal  in  1660 
('62  ?)  make  the  old  formula  more  explicit,  not  a  whit 
more  sufficient,  for  the  formula  itself  remains  as  it  was 
in  the  old  Ordinals ;  and  as  it  is  still  in  the  Romish 
Pontifical."  The  falsehood  of  this  assertion  is  already 
proved  and  patent,  but  its  reiteration  is  something 
amazing,  as  anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  com- 
pare any  of  the  old,  ante-Reformation  Sacramentaries, 
and  the  present  Roman  Pontifical  with  the  unrevised 
Edwardine  Ordinal,  will  at  once  see  its  glaring  falsehood. 
"The  words,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  continues, 
"are  used  in  both  (the  Roman  Pontifical  and  Edward's 
Ordinal)  as  sufficient  to  complete  a  solemnity  which 
preceding  words  have  defined  to  be  the  consecration 
of  a  bish  >p."  «Now  let  us  remember  that,  as  we  before 
declared,  the  words,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  were 
not  at  all  in  the  older  Ordinals,  and  in  the  Roman 


152 


THE  A'OA/AN  PONTIFICAL  AND 


Pontifical  they  were  not  used  as  sufficient  to  complete 
the  consecration  of  a  bishop.  These  words  now  used 
in  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  constitute  an  integral 
part  of  the  form,  and  the  Council  of  Trent  has  defined 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  in  Holy  Orders,  and  that 
the  bishops  say  not  in  vain  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost," 
but  the  Council  has  not  defined  or  insinuated  that 
these  words  are  the  form  of  the  sacrament  of  orders, 
nor  does  the  Pontifical  teach  that  these  words  aresuf- 
ficent  for  the  consecration  of  a  bishop.  The  Church 
has  not  defined  what  precise  words  do  consititute  the 
sacramental  form  of  Holy  Orders  and  are  positively 
essential  to  its  valid  administration,  and  theologians 
have  held  different  opinions  on  the  subject,  but  all 
hold  that  in  orders,  as  in  "baptism,  the  sacramental 
form  is  contained  in  the  words  or  prayers  used  in  the 
application  of  the  matter,  and  that  there  must  be  at 
least  a  moral  union  between  them,  so  that  whilst  the 
minister  pronounces  the  words  of  the  form,  he  may  be 
morally  supposed  to  perform  the  act  denoting  the 
special  nature  of  the  sacrament  which  he  confers,  and 
signifying  the  special  effects  produced,  and  determining 
the  special  character  impressed  on  the  soul,  or  sacra- 
mental grace  infused. 

It  will  not  do,  then,  for  any  one  following  Courayer 
and  other  Anglican  writers,  to  say  that  words  preced- 
ing the  form  sufficiently  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
form,  and  define  the  solemnity  to  be  the  consecration 
of  a  bishop.  Would  he  acknowledge,  for  instance,  the 
validity  of  a  baptism  in  which  the  determining  words, 
"  I  baptize  thee,"  were  omitted,  on  the  plea  that  the 
preliminary  interrogatories,  and  ceremonies,  and 
prayers,  sufficiently  indicated  that  it  was  the  sacra- 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  ED  WARD. 


'53 


ment  of  baptism  which  the  minister  intended  to  confer  ? 
We  think  not ;  at  least  Catholics  would  not,  and  Pope 
Alexander  III.  has  pronounced  invalid,  baptism  in 
which  these  words  "  I  baptize  thee"  were  omitted,  and 
merely  the  words  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.,  said 
whilst  the  water  was  poured  ;  not,  as  a  learned  canonist 
remarks,  because  these  precise  words  were  omitted,  for 
the  Greeks  do  not  use  these  identical  words,  but "  because 
the  act  which  is  performed  by  the  minister  is  not  re- 
garded as  sufficiently  expressive,"  does  not  sufficiently 
determine  the  special  object  of  the  sacrament.  The 
same  eminent  divine  (von  Espen)  affirms  that  Eugenius 
IV.,  in  his  famous  decree  to  the  Armenians,  "  clearly 
intimates  that  the  expression  of  the  ministerial  act  in 
baptism  is  necessary  for  its  effect ;  thus  anxiously  re- 
quiring that  the  act. which  is  exercised  by  the  minister 
should  be  expressed."  From  this  Canon  Raynal,  from 
whom  we  largely  borrow,  argues :  "  What  has  been  said 
of  the  form  of  Baptism,  will  hold  good  in  regard  to 
Holy  Orders,  and  an  expression  of  the  ministerial  act 
which  determines  the  special  character  conferred  by 
the  imposition  of  hands,  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
validity  of  the  sacramental  forms  of  the  sacred  orders." 
But  in  the  form  by  which  Parker  was  consecrated,  or 
in  the  words,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  there  is  no 
such  expression  of  a  ministerial  act  determining  the 
special  character  conferred,  or  defining  the  rite  to  be 
the  consecration  of  a  bishop,  and  no  preceding  words 
can  supply  for  this  essential  defect  in  the  Edwardine 
form.  Canon  Estcourt  produces  the  testimony  of 
Richard  Broughton,  a  Catholic  writer,  on  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  in  16^2,  which  bears  so  strongly  on  this 
subject  of  the  Anglican  lorin,  which  ,s  so  persistently 


! 54  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFJCAL  AND 

i 

maintained  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tifical, and  the  same  as  that  on  which  our  own  claims  to 
be  a  bishop  must  depend,  that  we  cannot  resist  the 
temptation  of  quoting  it : 

"  And  these  Protestants'  form  of  making  their  pre- 
tended bishops,  is  also  utterly  overthrown.  *  *  *  For 
there  is  not  one  singular  or  privileged  thing,  sign,  cere- 
mony, word  or  act,  that  may  by  probable  or  possible 
means  give  episcopal  order ;  *  *  *  for  here  is  no  more 
done  or  said  than  was  in  their  making  of  pretended 
priests  or  ministers  before ;  for  these,  the  same  were 
their  ceremony,  and  words:  'Receive  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
Here  is  no  material  difference  ;  a  bishop  is  pretended 
consecrator  in  both  alike  ;  the  ceremony  of  laying  on 
of  hands  is  the  same  ;  the  words  spoken  do  not  differ  ; 
in  both  there  is  the  same  sentence  and  sense.  *  *  *  In 
the  pretended  ordination  of  bishops  there  is  no  power 
at  all  given,  but  the  party  only  put  in  mind  or  admon- 
ished to  stir  up  that  grace,  which  was  in  him  before — 
the  very  same  words  which  St.  Paul,  absent,  wrote  to 
St.  Timothy,  long  after  he  had  consecrated  him  priest." 
We  do  not  think  it  necessary  for  our  purpose,  in  this 
little  treatise,  and  to  justify  our  rejection  of  the  Anglican 
form,  to  examine  the  theological  question,  whether  these 
words,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  the  mouth  of  a 
Catholic  bishop,  united  in  faith,  and  in  full  accord  with 
the  Catholic  Church  regarding  Holy  Orders,  the  priest- 
hood, and  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  and  using  otherwise  a 
liturgy  approved  by  the  Church,  and  expressing  the 
faith  of  the  Church  in  the  sacramental  grace  and  power 
of  Holy  Orders,  would  be  sufficient,  or,  in  other  words, 
whether  the  form  used  in  the  Anglican  Church,  si  nihil 
alind  obstet,  were  there  nothing  else  to  hinder  it,  would 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


155 


be  a  valid  form.  Some  Catholic  writers  affirm  it. 
Canon  Estcourt  is  of  this  opinion,  and  a  writer  in  the 
"  Cat  holic  World"  for  August,  1874,  coincides  with  Canon 
Estcourt,  that,  "  so  far  as  the  material  words  of  the 
Edwardine  forms  go,  they  are  sufficient — i.  e.,  they  are 
words  capable  of  being  used  in  a  sense  in  which  they 
would  be  sufficient — but  the  words  are  ambiguous." 
These  writers  have  apparently  adopted  this  opinion  on 
the  strength  of  a  so-called  decree  of  the  Holy  Office, 
in  1704,  approving  of  certain  Abyssinian  ordinations,  in 
which  the  abuna,  or  Abyssinian  ordaining  prelate, 
passed  hurriedly  along  a  line  of  deacons,  laying  his 
hands  on  the  head  of  each  and  saying,  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  Canon  Estcourt," 
says  the  writer  in  the  "Catholic  World"  "  has  understood 
the  Sacred  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition,  in  their 
decree  of  1704,  to  have  ruled  that  the  form,  'Accipe 
Spiritum  Sanctum,'  understood  in  the  sense  of  the 
Abyssinian  liturgical  books,  is  valid  for  the  priesthood, 
although,  in  the  particular  case,  no  further  expression 
is  given  to  this  sense,  at  least  no  expression  within  the 
limits  of  the  form,  strictly  so  called — i.  c,  "  the  verbal 
formula  synchronous  with  the  matter."  For  ourselves, 
we  do  not  see  how  this  decision  or  answer  of  the 
Sacred  Congregation  (which  Cardinal  Patrizi  says  is  not 
a  decree  of  the  Sacred  Congregation),  in  a  special  case, 
in  regard  to  a  solitary  deviation  from  an  otherwise  ap- 
proved liturgy,  can  be  amplified  into  a  general  recog- 
nition of  the  validity  of  the  form,  " Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum."  The  answer  can  cover  only  the  case,  or  solve 
the  doubt  proposed.  Now  there  is  no  proof,  as  far  as 
we  can  see,  that  the  dubium  proposed  by  the  mission- 
aries to  the  Holy  Office  had  reference  to  the  sacra- 


156  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

mental  form,  F.  Jones  asserting  that  it  turned  exclu- 
sively on  the  non-tradition  of  the  instruments,  and  the 
fact  that  the  bishop  did  not  lay  his  hands  on  each  of 
the  deacons  during  the  whole  of  the  form,  but  hurried 
along  the  line,  imposing  his  hands  on  each  only  whilst 
pronouncing  a  part  of  the  form,  or  the  words,  Reple 
eum  Spiritu  Sancto,  which  words  he  thinks  the  mission- 
aries translate,  "Accipe  Spirit um  Sanctum."  This  most 
probably  is  the  correct  view  and  statement  of  the  case 
proposed  to  the  Sacred  Congregation,  so  that  the  "  tal 
modo  e  forma"  of  the  dubium  may  refer  to  the  hurried 
imposition  of  hands  during  one  phrase,  instead  of  the 
whole  of  the  form,  Respice. 

In  fact,  we  do  not  see  how  from  this  so  called  decree  of 
the  Sacred  Congregation,  dated  April  10th,  1704,  after 
the  letter  of  his  Eminence  Cardinal  Patrizi  to  Cardinal 
Manning,  which  we  find  in  "The  Month"  for  August, 
1875,  and  which  we  subjoin,  can  in  any  way  be  con- 
strued the  sufficiency  of  the  form,  "  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum"  the  cardinal  expressly  affirming:  "This 
S.  S.  C.  never,  either  explicitly  or  implicitly,  declared 
that  the  imposition  of  hands  with  these  only  words, 
Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  sufficed  for  the  validity  of 
the  order  of  the  priesthood." 

I. — LETTER  FROM   H.   E.   CARDINAL  PATRIZI   TO    H.    E. 
THE  CARDINAL- ARCHBISHOP  OF  WESTMINSTER. 

"Domino  Cardinali  Archiepiscopo  Westmonastericnsi. 
"  Eminentissime  ac  Reverendissime  Domine  Obsme 
"  Litteris  diei  24  Augusti,  anni  nuper  clapsi,  referebat 
Eminentia  Vestra  quaestionem  isthic  exortam  inter 
aliquos  Scriptores,  circa  sensum  cujusdam,  ut  appellat, 
"decreti,"  ab  hoc  Suprema  Congregatione  Universalis 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


157 


Inquisitionis  die  10  Aprillis,  anni  1704,  editi,  quod 
valorem  respicit  ordinationis  in  quodam  Casu  Abissi 
norum  expletae  per  verba  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum 
manuum  impositioni  conjuncta,  ex  eoque  Anglicanos 
praesumere  ac  jactitare  nullum  jam  posse  a  Catholicis 
moveri  dubium  de  eorum  ordinum  validitate.  Proinde 
ad  anxietates  eliminandas,  veritatemque  securius  de- 
fendendam,  quaerebat  eadem  Eminentia  Vestra  sequen- 
tis  dubii  declarationem ;  scilicet,  an,  in  supra-asserto 
decreto,  explicite  vel  implicite,  contineatur  doctrinaad 
validitatem  ordinis  presbyteratus  sufficere  impositionem 
manuum  cum  iis  dumtaxat  verbis  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum. 

"Jam  vero  Eminentissimi  Patres  Cardinales  una 
mecum  Inquisitores  Generales,  articulo  formaliter  ac 
mature  discusso,  in  feria  iv.  die  21  labentis  mensis, 
rogationi  ejusmodi  respondendum  duxerunt  Negative. 
Atque,  ad  hujusce  decreti  justitiam  protuendam,  pauca, 
ex  mente  Sacri  Ordinis,  Eminentiae  Vestrae  innuisse 
sufficiat.  Scilicet,  ex  ipso  Coptorum  ritu,  ut  in  eorum 
libris  Pontificalibus  habetur,  manifestum  esse,  ilia  verba 
Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum  non  integram  formam  con- 
stituere,  nee  sensum  documenti,  quod  ex  anno  1704 
profertur,  quodque  non  est  decretum  Sanctae  Congre- 
gationis,  uti  ex  ejus  Tabulario  patet,  alio  modo  intelli- 
gendurri  esse  nisi  quod,  penes  Coptos,  ordinatio  pres- 
byteri  cum  impositione  manuum  Episcopi,  et  prolatione 
formae,  in  antiquo  eorum  ritu  praescriptae,  valida  sit 
habenda:  nunquam  vero  Sanctam  Supremam  Congre- 
gationem,  sive  explicite  sive  implicite,  declarasse  ad 
validitatem  ordinis  presbyteratus  sufficere  manuum 
impositionem  cum  his  dumtaxat  verbis.  Accipe  Spiri- 
tum Sanctum. 


i58 


THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 


"  Post  haec,  cum  me  jam  mei  muneris  partes  imple- 
visse  sciam,  superest  ut,  eo  quo  par  est  obsequio,  Emin- 
entiae  Vestrae  manus  humillime  deosculer. 
"  Eminentiae  Vestrae — 
M  Romae,  die  30  Aprilis,  1875. 

{Sign  :)  "  Humillimus  et  devotissimus  Servus, 
"  C.  Card.  Patrizi." 

This  so-called  decision  does  not  then,  as  the  learned 
Canon  Estcourt  supposes,  establish  the  principle  that 
the  words,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  are  sufficient  as  a 
form  of  ordination  to  the  priesthood.  Cardinal  Patrizi 
expressly  declares  that  from  the  rite  of  the  Copts,  as 
found  in  their  Pontifical  books,  it  is  manifest  that 
those  words,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  do  not  consti- 
tute the  integral  form,  and  that  the  sense  of  the  docu- 
ment published  in  1704  is  to  be  understood  in  no  other 
way  than  that  among  the  Copts  the  ordination  of  a 
priest  with  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands  and 
the  pronouncing  of  the  form  prescribed  in  their  ancient 
rite  is  to  be  held  valid. 

However,  no  one  pretends  that  the  Sacred  Congre- 
gation sanctioned  the  form,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum, 
taken  by  itself  simply,  but  specificated  in  the  sense  of 
the  Abyssinian  liturgy,  as  the  "Catholic  World"  justly  in- 
terprets the  mind  of  Canon  Estcourt.  But  the  learned 
canon  expresses  this  himself  so  strongly  and  clearly  that 
we  must  give  his  own  words :  "  It  is  perfectly  well  known 
that  even  if  the  prayers  prescribed  by  the  Abyssinian 
sacred  books  are  not  said,  yet  that  the  faith  and  doc- 
trine of  the  Abyssinian  Church  is  expressed  by  those 
prayers,  and  that  it  is  the  same  with  the  faith  and 
doctrine   of    the    Catholic    Church    regarding    Holy 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD. 


'59 


Orders  and  the  priesthood.  There  is  no  addition  made 
to  the  words  which  excludes  the  due  and  proper  sense 
from  them,  and  therefore  no  doubt  can  exist  about  the 
sense  in  which  the  words  are  used  in  an  Abyssinian 
ordination,  though  the  practice  is  so  far  short  of  the 
theory.  There  is  also  a  certain  faith  and  doctrine  ex- 
pressed in  the  Anglican  forms  of  ordination  ;  and  it  is 
not  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but 
that  of  Luther  and  other  reformers.  It  is  impossible 
to  take  the  words,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  separately 
from  the  context  in  which  they  are  found.  And  the 
context  does  exclude  a  due  and  proper  sense,  and 
fixes  and  determines  the  sense  to  be  contrary  to  that 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  Thus  the  Abyssinian  abuna, 
though  he  repeats  no  more  than  those  three  words, 
yet,  following  the  traditions  of  his  Church,  expresses 
his  faith  with  respect  to  the  sacramental  grace  and 
power  of  the  order  conferred  in  a  manner  agreeable 
with  that  of  the  Catholic  Church.  On  the  other  band, 
the  bishop  who  uses  the  Anglican  form  in  ordaining, 
is  not  only  prevented  from  attaching  a  right  sense  to 
those  words,  but  openly  declares  and  professes  that  he 
does  not  repeat  them  according  to  the  sense  in  which 
the  Catholic  Church  receives  and  uses  them."  So 
that  even  if  the  material  words,  "  Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  were  sufficient  in  connection  with  an  otherwise 
approved  liturgy  and  authorized  ordination  rite,  the 
Anglican  form  would  be  invalid,  because  the  Catholic 
liturgies  and  the  Catholic  Ordinals  were  vitiated  for  the 
purpose  of  introducing  error. 

"  It  is  a  settled  principle  with  Catholics,"  says  Arch- 
bishop Kenrick,  "  that  no  error  about  the  nature  or 
efficacy  of  a  sacrament,  no  positive  disbelief  of  its  divine 


l6o  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

institution,  or  any  other  personal  unworthiness  on  the 
part  of  him  who  administers  it,  can  deprive  such  a 
sacrament  of  its  effect,  provided  sufficient  matter,  valid 
form,  and  due  intention  concur  in  its  administration. 

"But  if  the  matter  be  omitted,  or  curtailed  of  any- 
essential  part ;  if  the  form  be  vitiated,  or  if  ambiguity 
be  introduced,  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  error,  it 
is  no  longer  a  valid  means  of  producing  sacramental 
effects."  Dr.  Newman  in  a  note,  written  since  his  con- 
version to  the  Catholic  Church,  on  an  essay  written 
whilst  a  leading  spirit  of  the  Anglican  communion, 
says:  "  The  consecrations  of  1556  were  not  only  facts, 
they  were  acts  ;  those  acts  were  not  done  and  over 
once  for  all,  but  were  only  the  first  of  a  series  of  acts, 
s  done  in  long  course  of  years  ;  these  acts,  too,  all  of  them, 
were  done  by  men  of  certain  positive  opinions  and  in- 
tentions, and  none  of  these  opinions  and  views,  from 
first  to  last,  of  a  Catholic  complexion,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, erroneous  and  heretical.  And  I  question  whether 
men  of  those  opinions  could,  by  means  of  a  mere  rite 
or  formulary,  however  correct  in  itself,  start  and  con- 
tinue in  a  religions  communion,  such  as  the  Anglican, 
a  ministerial  succession  which  could  be  depended  on 
as  inviolate.  I  do  not  see  what  guarantee  is  produci- 
ble for  the  faithful  observance  of  a  sacred  rite  in  form, 
matter,  and  intention,  through  so  long  a  period,  in  the 
hands  of  such  administrators." 

I  will  now  adduce  one  more  testimony  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  view  of  the  nullity  of  the  Anglican  form, 
on  account  of  the  bad  faith  and  heterodoxy  of  its 
framers.  Dr.  Lee,  one  of  the  Buffalo  divine's  most  trusty 
guides  and  reliable  authorities,  alleges  the  celebrated 
Franciscus  a  Sancta  Clara,  as  an  authority  in  favor  of 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  ED  WAND.  ^ 

the  validity  of  Anglican  orders.  Him,  then,  we  shall 
summon,  as  our  last  witness  to  confound  Dr.  Lee,  and 
to  demolish  the  forms  of  Edward's  Ordinal.  After 
asserting  in  explanation  of  the  36th  Article,  that :  their 
(the  Anglican)  ordination,  for  as  much  as  concerns 
their  form  and  matter,  will  be  valid,  "  si  nihil  obstet,"  "  if 
there  be  notliing  else  to  hinder/'  he  subjoins:  "Not- 
withstanding all  this,  after  a  serious  and  sincere  exam- 
ination, I  must  put  this  final  resolution  as  a  most  in- 
dubitable conclusion  :  according  to  the  clear  sense  of  the 
ancient  and  present  universal  Church,  their  ordinations  are, 
ipso  jure,  invalid."  After  showing  that:  "The  judg- 
ment of  the  whole  Catholic  Church  was  and  is,  that 
baptism  administered  by  an  Arian  intending  to  oppose 
the  Church's  sense,  that  is,  not  to  do  what  the  Church 
doth,  by  that  their  imperfect  form,  would  be  invalid, 
and  by  consequence  his  ordination,  though  not  differ- 
ing essentially  from  the  Catholic  form.,  provided  that 
he  should  hereby  sufficiently  manifest  his  depraved 
sense  to  be  against  the  truth  of  Christ's  institution," 
he  continues :  "  The  application  of  this,  or  this  ex- 
plication, is  easy  to  the  question  of  ordination,  minis- 
tered by  our  Protestant  bishops  ;  for  though  we  should 
suppose  these  forms  not  to  be  substantially  changed, 
or  their  derivation  of  episcopacy  to  have  been  origin- 
ally from  ours,  as  they  seriously  pretend,  yet  since 
they  have  changed  the  church  forms,  dc  industria,  as 
the  second  sort  of  Arians  did,  to  declare  that  they  do 
not  what  the  Church  intends,  and  in  pursuit  thereof 
have  solemnly  decreed  against  the  power  of  sacrificing 
and  consecrating,  that  is  in  the  sense  of  the  old  and 
present  Catholic  Church,  of  changing  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  our 


162  THE  ROM  AX  PONTIFICAL  *T//Z> 

Lord,  as  appears  in  the  28th  and  31st  Articles,  it  evi- 
dently concludes  that  they  never  did  or  could  validly 
■ordain  priests,  and  consequently  bishops,  having,  as  I 
say,  expressed  clearly  the  depravation  of  their  intentions 
in  order  to  the  first  and  principal  part  of  ordination, 
■which  consisteth  in  the  power,  super %  Corpus  Christi 
I'crum,  of  sacrificing  and  consecrating  his  true  body,  by 
them  professedly  denied,  and  the  sacrifice  declared  a 
pernicious  imposture,  (a  strange  expression)  in  their 
articles,  never  repealed  or  mitigated  in  any  synod." 

After  ridiculing  the  pretension  that,  even  if  there 
"were  a  flaw  in  the  first  consecration,  a  valid  succession 
was  transmitted  in  after  times,  as  if  "they  could  derive 
a  succession  per  sa/titm,  as  from  a  great  grandfather, 
without  a  father,"  he  concludes  with  this  argument : 
"'All  ordinations,  celebrated  in  a  form  different  from 
the  Church,  with  an  intention,  sufficiently  expressed, 
of  opposition  to  her  sense,  are  invalid  according  to  the 
•definitions  of  the  general  councils  cited  (Nice  and 
Aries).  But  their  ordinations  are  such,  ergo."  From 
this  extract  it  is  plain,  as  Canon  Estcourt  remarks; 
from  whom  we  have  abridged-  it,  that  this  would-be 
witness  to  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders,  rejects  them 
-most  explicitly  and  roundly,  even  when  conceding  that 
the  forms  may  be  sufficient  in  themselves,  "  yet,  as 
the)'  have  been  changed,  dc  iiidustria,  to  declare  that 
the  ordainers  do  not  intend  what  the  Church  intends, 
the  ordination  cannot  be  valid."  We  have  now  done 
with  the  main  question  at  issue,  the  legitimate  succes- 
sion and  valid  orders  of  the  Anglican  'and  Protestant 
Episcopal  bishops,  having  demonstrated  fully,  at  least 
Ave  think  so,  that   Anglicans  have  no   claims  to  either. 

Dr.  Lee  himself,  the  chafmpion  of    Anglican   orders. 


THE  ORDINAL  Of  EDWARD.  163 

is  too  fair  and  too  conversant  with  the  subject  to 
simply  pooh-pooh  the  objections  of  Catholics.  We  will 
then  let  him  have  the  closing  words  on  Anglican 
ordinations.  "  There  are,"  he  says,  in  his  late  work,  "  cer- 
tain difficulties,  which,  it  must  be  frankly  allowed,  have 
always  been  felt  by  learned  Roman  Catholics  and  Orien- 
tals, with  regard  to  the  fact  of  Parker's  consecration  and 
which  must  be  duly  faced  and  removed,  before  any  re- 
cognition of  the  validity  of  English  ordinations  can  be 
reasonably  expected  from  the  Eastern  or  Western 
Churches.  Anglicans  must  not  remain  contented  with 
assertions,  which  appear  to  satisfy  themselves,  but  be 
prepared  with  arguments  and  conclusions,  which  will 
convince  their  opponents."  (Vol.  1.  p.  99).  "The 
modern  Easterns,"  continues  the  same  frank  and  able 
writer,  "though  personally  civil  and  polite  enough, 
frequently  repudiate  our  ordinations  with  scorn.  The 
late  archbishop  of  Syros  and  Tenos,  even  more  civil 
than  some  of  his  brethren,  reordained  absolutely  the 
Rev.  James  Chrystal,  an  American  clergyman  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  while  the  Servian  archi- 
mandrete,  who  once  gave  Holy  Communion  to  a 
London  clergyman,  the  Rev.  Wm.  Denton,  who  had 
rendered  good  service  to  the  Servian  Church,  was 
most  severely  reprimanded  by  authority,  and  made  to 
give  a  promise  in  writing,  that  he  would  never  repeat  that, 
his  canonical  offense  ;  and  this  in  a  formal  document, 
which  described  the  Church  of  England  as  '  unortho- 
dox,' and  Protestant,  and  the  clergyman  in  question  as 
'  without  the  priesthood.'"  We  are  not  alone,  then, 
in  questioning  Anglican  and  Protestant  Episcopal 
orders. 

Nor  is  it  owing  to  the  gross  ignorance  of  Roman 


164  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

Catholic  theologians,  that  succession  and  orders  in  the 
Anglican  establishment  are  rejected,  for  Dr.  Lee,  with 
praiseworthy  candor,  asserts  :  "  At  Rome  every  care 
is  taken  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  so  that  the  inadequate 
defences  regarded  as  sufficient  and  satisfactory  by  some 
at  home,  will  never  pass  muster,  in  presence  of  the 
skilled  theologians  of  the  eternal  city.  A  huge  assump- 
tion, as  Roman  Catholic  theologians  maintain,  that  all 
was  right  in  Parker's  case,  is  of  course  easily  enough 
made ;  but  detailed  proof  of  facts,  and  satisfactory  re- 
plies to  objections  often  give  trouble,  entail  research, 
and  yet  remain  insufficient  for  the  purpose."  (Vol.  i. 
p.  200.)  And  yet,  in  spite  of  his  close  study  of  facts 
and  patient  research,  Dr.  Lee  is  forced  to  fall  back  on 
what  he  styles  the  moral  argument  in  favor  of  Anglican 
orders.  But  let  us  hear  him  further:  "Of  course  to 
any  English  churchman,  of  the  Oxford  school,  the  pro- 
ceedings in  question  will  no  doubt  be  read  with  some 
pain.  It  is  no  easy  task  to  show  that  the  revived  doc- 
trines and  Catholic  practices,  now  so  largely  current  in 
every  diocese  of  our  beloved  country,  and,  many  of 
them,  so  generally  popular,  were  utterly  repudiated  by 
the  dismal  prelates,  whose  violent  and  heretical  lan- 
guage is  so  awful  in  itself  and  so  disquieting  to  dwell 
upon  ;  and  whose  destructive  labors  it  is  so  'distasteful 
to  put  on  record.  Men  who  in  a  spirit  of  self-sacrifice 
now  repair  churches,  cleanse  the  font,  rebuild  the 
broken-down  altar  of  the  Lord,  beautify  His  sanctuary, 
adorn  with  pictured  pane  and  mosaic  representation 
the  chancel  wall — who  open  the  restored  churches  for 
the  daily  office,  who — in  the  face  of  secular  and  sense- 
less 'judgments' — believe  in  baptismal  regeneration, 
practise  confession,  pray  for  the  departed,  and  kave 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  EDWARD.  165 

been  led,  step  by  step,  to  restore  the  Christian  sacrifice 
and  Eucharistie  adoration  ;  and  who,  furthermore,  look 
upon  themselves,  now  clothed  in  sacerdotal  garments, 
and  standing  facing  the  crucifix  at  lighted  altars,  as 
sacrificing  priests  of  the  New  Law — can  surely  have 
but  little  in  common  with  the  vulgar  anti-Catholic 
bishops  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  day,  whose  profane  and 
awful  words,  when  read  at  a  distance  of  three  centuries 
or  more,  make  a  reverent  person  shudder;  and  the 
dark  records  of  whose  blasphemies  and  active  wicked- 
ness, when  calmly  faced,  sends  a  thrilling  shiver  through 
the  heart  of  a  Christian,  and  makes  every  decent  Eng- 
lishman— unparalyzed  by  indifference,  and  not  choked 
by  false  science — blush  for  shame  that  such  officials 
ever  belonged  to  so  moderate  and  respectable  an  in- 
stitution as  the  Church  of  England  by  law  established 
now  appears."  (Vol.  i.  p.  272-4.) 

The  above  we  have  borrowed  from  an  able  article  in 
the  "  Liverpool  Catholic  Times,1'  and  although  somewhat 
lengthy  we  will  allow  the  writer  to  continue  his  review 
of  Dr.  Lee's  work  in  his  own  words: 

"  From  these  data,  Dr.  Lee,  in  several  places,  but  es- 
pecially in  his  introductory  essay  on  'The  present 
position  of  the  Established  Church,'  draws  a  'moral' 
argument  in  favor  of  Anglican  Orders.  '  It  is  self- 
evident,'  he  writes,  '  that  the  moral  argument  in  favor 
of  their  validity  is  very  strong,  perhaps  stronger  than 
either  the  theological  or  historical  argument.  When 
the  frightful  state  of  degradation  into  which  the 
National  Church  during  Elizabeth's  reign  had  been 
brought,  is  honestly  contemplated  ;  and  when  the  strik- 
ing contrast  between  its  position  then  and  its  altered 
state  now  is  dulv  realized — the  manner    in  which  so 


x66  THE  a(  MAN  PONTIFICAL  AND 

much  that  had  been  then  cast  away  as  valueless  is  now 
sought  after  and  has  been  once  more  secured  ;  we  may 
reasonably  infer  (though  there  be  no  exact  precedent 
nor  perfect  parallels  in  past  history  for  the  complex 
character  and  unique  position  of  the  Established  Church 
of  England)  that,  as  divine  grace  has  never  been  with- 
drawn from  her  crippled  rulers,  so  an  inherent  and  es- 
sential distinction  between  clergy  and  laity  has  been 
in  the  main  consistently  and  continually  remarked  and 
admitted.'     (Pp.   51-52.) 

"  We  give  the  argument  in  the  writer's  own  words,  so 
as  not  to  deprive  it  of  any  weight  which  may  legiti- 
mately attach  to  it.  But  we  cannot  but  think  that  Dr. 
Lee's  own  volumes  are  its  completest  refutation.  Angli- 
cans are  in  the  habit  of  assuming  that  the  '  Reforma- 
tion' in  England  essentially  differed  from  that  on  the 
Continent  and  in  Scotland  in  certain  respects,  and,  inter 
alia,  in  the  retention  of  a  belief  in,  and  respect  for,  the 
grace  of  Holy  Orders ;  and  then  (when  historical  diffi- 
culties are  raised)  they  fall  back  upon  the  sentiment 
that  God  would  never  have  permitted  the  lapse  of  sac- 
ramental grace  through  the  accidental  oversight  of  any 
essential.  Dr.  Lee  makes  short  work,  however,  of  any 
such  assumption.  He  shows  the  authors  and  abettors 
of  the  New  Church  as  being  to  the  full  as  blasphemous 
and  sacrilegious,  as  coarse,  as  immoral,  and  altogether 
as  satanic,  as  the  Continental  '  Reformers,'  with  the 
superadded  malice  of  abominable  and  anti-Christian 
subserviency  to  the  crown.  So  far,  then,  the  moral 
argument  against  Anglican  orders  is  as  strong  as 
against  Presbyterian  or  Lutheran  ones.  In  other  words, 
as.  upon  Anglican  equally  as  upon  Catholic  principles, 
we  know  that  God  permitted  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  and 


THE  ORDINAL  OF  ED  IV A  A'D.  j  6>> 

the  Continental  Protestant  Communions  to  have  lost 
the  grace  of  orders  and  sacraments,  there  is  no  reason 
(in  the  absence  of  direct  proof)  to  believe  that  He  dealt 
otherwise  with  the  equally  guilty  and  sacrilegious, 
rulers  of  the  Elizabethan  Church.  The  weight  of  proba- 
bility is  that  God  should,  rather  than  that  He  should 
not,  have  withdrawn  His  sacraments  from  the  sac- 
rilegious grasp,  of  men  who  were  wont  to  style  the-: 
Blessed  Sacrament — Jiorrcscimus  referi'ntt's"—(Wc  can- 
not bring  ourselves  down  to  quote  the  low  and  shock- 
ing language  used  by  the  reformers  towards  the  Blessed. 
Sacrament):  "  who  in  all  things  were  the  subservient 
tools  of,  a  monster  who,  whilst  claiming  more  than 
Pontifical  honors,  caused  the  Corpus  Christi  canppy  to* 
be  borne  over  her  at  Cambridge,  and  who  ended  by- 
making  the  hearing  or  singing  of  Mass  a  crime  punish- 
able by  fine,  imprisonment  and  death. 

"  But  the  moral  argument  against  Anglican  orders  is 
still  stronger  when  we  consider  the  attitude  of  the 
Elizabethan  bishops  themselves  towards  orders.  One 
and  all  they  repudiate  any  such  belief  in  ordination  as 
obtains  among  Ritualists,  or  even  among  moderate 
Anglicans.  They  denounced  the  sacrament  of  order 
as  fully,  as  consistently,  and  as  vehemently  as  they 
denounced  the  Mass,  the  Real  Presence,  or  Extreme 
Unction.  Again  and  again  they  admitted  merrtocure 
of  souls  who  had  never  received  episcopal  ordination, 
and  allowed  preachers  to  occupy  benefices  who  refused 
to  administer  either  Baptism  or  'the  Supper,'  and 
were  known  as  '  no  sacrament  ministers."  They  were 
quite  content  to  hold  their  posts  solely  from  the 
queen,  to  be  'bishops  by  act  of  Parliament.'  And 
when,  later  on,  an  attempt  was  made  to  claim  for  them 


1 68  PONTIFICAL  AND  ORDINAL. 

some  kind  of  spiritual  jurisdiction  as  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  they  were  promptly  told  that  their  jurisdiction 
was  derived  from  the  crown,  and  that  any  attempt  to 
claim  independent  jurisdiction  would  lay  them  open 
to  the  penalties  of  premunire.  Even  Hooker,  whom 
Dr.  Lee  rightly  praises  as  'the  first  person  among 
the  English  ministers  who,  by  the  general  soundness  of 
his  principles,  the  clearness  of  his  thoughts,  and  the 
ability  with  which  he  set  them  forth,  began  to  stem 
the  tide  of  confusion,  innovation,  and  novelty,'  never 
adopted  the  Catholic  belief  as  to  orders,  and  actually 
regarded  Dr.  Adrian  de  Saravia — 'ordained  abroad 
by  presbyters,  if  at  all,' — as  a  fit  and  capable  confessor, 
and  so  employed  him  upon  his  death-bed,  receiving 
also  the  Communion  at  his  hands.  No  doubt  the 
Caroline  divines,  like  their  successors  of  the  Oxford 
school,  succeeded  in  raising  the  standard  of  sacramental 
belief,  but  like  the  changes  in  the  Ordinal,  due,  no 
doubt,  to  the  influence  of  their  teaching,  such  improve- 
ments came  too  late  to  affect  the  main  question." 


CONCLUSION.  i6g 


XII. 

CONCLUSION. 

WE  have  now  come  to  the  end  of  our  little  work, 
and  it  only  remains  for  us  to  summarize  the 
main  points  on  which  we  touched,  and  the  conclusions 
which  we  reached.  We  have  endeavored  to  show,  with 
what  success  our  readers  will  judge,  that  the  line  of 
Apostolical  succession  has  been  hopelessly  broken  be- 
tween the  Primitive  Church,  and  the  Anglican  and 
Protestant  Episcopal  Churches,  and  that  every  at- 
tempt to  bridge  the  chasm  between  Catholic  England 
under  the  supremacy  of  the  Popes,  and  the  Anglican  es- 
tablishment under  the  Tudors,  between  Cardinal  Pole, 
last  Catholic  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Matthew 
Parker,  the  first  link  of  the  new  line  forged  by  the 
despotic  iron  hand  of  Elizabeth,  has  been  vain.  Suppos- 
ing the  Lambeth  Register  to  be  a  genuine,  authentic 
document,  the  form  used  at  Parker  s  consecration  was 
confessedly  that  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  devised 
towards  the  end  of  the  year  1549.  The  form  prescribed 
in  the  Roman  Pontifical  was  abolished  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment (3  Edward  VI.,  c.  2)  and  the  newly  devised  form 
made  obligatory  after  April  1  st,  1 5  50,  and  added  to  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  by  another  act  of  Parliament  in 
1552  (5  and  6  Edward  VI.).  According  to  the  Lambeth 


i;o 


CONCLUSION. 


Register,  Parker  was  consecrated  by  this  form,  which 
was  so  plainly  inadequate  and  invalid  that  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment were  deemed  necessary  to  supply  its  defects,  and 
in  the  year  1662,  one  hundred  years  later,  the  form 
was  again  changed,  obviously  to  remedy  deficiencies 
pointed  out  by  Catholics  and  Dissenters,  and  perhaps, 
too,  to  satisfy  a  reactionary  movement  inside  the  es- 
tablishment itself  towards  Catholic  doctrine  and  prac- 
tices, though  its  defenders  stoutly  affirm  that  the 
change  was  not  made  to  add  to  the  validity,  but  to 
the  dignity  of  the  rite.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  form  is 
intrinsically  insufficient  to  confer  valid  consecration. 
Matthew  Parker,  therefore,  never  was  a  bishop,  and 
consequently  could  not  validly  consecrate  others.  Be- 
sides, grave  doubts  and  suspicions  attach  to  the  Lam- 
beth Register,  and  still  graver  doubts  are  entertained 
as  to  the  fact  of  Barlow's  consecration,  and  the  slen- 
der thread  on  which  Anglican  orders  rest  must  be  pain- 
fully apparent  to  those  who  claim  than  the  assistant 
bishops  at  Parker's  consecration,  and  at  some  subse- 
quent consecration,  would  even  suffice  to  supply  for 
Barlow's  non-consecration. 

What  thick  mists  and  dark  clouds  of  suspicions,  doubts 
and  uncertainties  hang  over  the  orders  of  the  Church  of 
England,  even  if  it  could  be  conceded — which  it  cannot 
consistently  with  the  doctrinal-  teachings  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church — that  the  form  was  a  vaild  one.  But  Apos- 
tolical succession  requires  not  only  valid  orders  but 
lawful  mission  ;  this  has  been  proved  from  the  teaching 
and  practice  of  the  early  Christian  Church  ;  this  is  held 
by  Anglicans  and  Episcopalians.  This  must,  how- 
ever, be  ever  carefully  borne  in  mind,  that  the  power  of 
order,  and  the  right  to  exercise  that  order,  jurisdiction. 


CONCL  US10N. 


171 


mission,  the  assignment  of  charge  or  people  over 
which  that  power  may  be  exercised,  are  very  different 
things,  and  do  not  necessarily  go  together.  A  bishop 
from  the  time  of  his  appointment,  even  before  his 
consecration,  has  jurisdiction  over  his  diocese,  though 
he  may  exercise  no  exclusively  episcopal  functions,  do- 
no  act  requiring  the  episcopal  order  and  character. 
He  may  govern  his  flock  as  a  legitimate  pastor,  and 
administer  his  diocese  and  empower  other  bishops  to 
ordain  priests  and  officiate  in  episcopal  functions. 
And  a  validly  and  lawfully  consecrated  bishop  may  be 
without  episcopal  jurisdiction,  may  have  no  charge,  no 
diocese  to  govern.  Auxiliary  and  co-adjutor  bishops 
have  only  such  limited  jurisdiction  as  the  titular  bishop 
or  ordinary  of  the  diocese  may  grant  them,  and  not 
unfrequcntly,  in  case  of  the  absence  or  death  of  the 
titular  bishop,  the  administration  is  in  the  hands  of 
a  priest,  a  vicar-general,  for  instance,  and  he  gives- 
jurisdiction  to  the  lawfully  consecrated  auxiliary 
bishop.  How  often  do  I  here  ordain  priests  for  other 
dioceses  and  confer  on  them  all  the  powers  of  their 
priestly  order,  but  I  cannot  give  them  jurisdiction. 
That  belongs  to  their  own  bishop.  Only,  then,  a  law- 
ful ecclesiastical  superior  can  impart  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  and  only  valid  orders  and  jurisdiction, 
transmitted  in  an  unbroken  line  irom  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  to  our  own  time,  can  constitute  Apostolical 
succession. 

Granted,  then,  that  Barlow  was  a  regularly  conse- 
crated bishop,  and  that  he,  in  the  Lambeth  chapel, 
actually  consecrated  Parker  with  valid  matter  and 
form,  even  with  the  intention  of  the  Church,  and  agree- 
ably  to  the  Roman   Pontifical,  from   whom   does  he 


f  y2  CONCL  USION. 

(Parker)  get  jurisdiction  ?  What  ecclesiastical  super- 
ior assigns  him  a  charge?  gives  him  the  right  to  exer- 
cise the  power  of  his  episcopal  order?  who  gives  him 
•charge  of  the  diocese  of  Canterbury?  Not  Barlow,  nor 
Scorey,  nor  Coverdale,  nor  Hodgkins  ;  one,  according 
to  the  Register,  bishop  elect  of  Chichester  ;  one,  bishop 
elect  of  Hereford  ;  one,  bishop  elect  of  Exeter,  and  the 
fourth  suffragan  of  Bedford.  What  right  had  they  in  the 
diocese  of  Canterbury  ?  How  could  they  confer  jurisdic- 
tion on  the  archbishop  from  whom  they  themselves  were 
to  be  confirmed  and  to  receive  a  mission  and  right  to  ex- 
ercise their  episcopal  orders?  Not  from  the  Pope,  who 
utterly  rejects  his  pretensions,  and  excommunicates  him 
as  a  schismatic  and  heretic.  Not  from  the  Pope,  whose 
authority  he  repudiates  and  forswears.  From  Queen 
Elizabeth,  then  ?  Yes,  this  is  his  only  and  last  resource. 
Here,  then,  comes  the  claim  of  royal,  spiritual  suprem- 
acy or  headship  over  the  Church  of  England,  started 
by  her  royal  father,  asserted  by  her  royal  brother,  and 
now  exercised  by  herself,  and  thus,  in  virtue  of  the 
powers  conferred  by  queen  and  Parliament,  is  Parker 
first  Anglican  archbishop  of  the  Church  by  law  estab- 
lished, and  thus  from  the  commencement  is  the  fatal 
defect,  the  disastrous  break  in  the  chain  of  Apostoli- 
cal succession.  And  it  is  well  said  :  "  that  as  original  sin 
is  not  done  away  with  by  distance  from  Adam,  so 
this  original  defect  of  jurisdiction  cannot  be  supplied 
by  length  of  time,  quod  ab  initio  nullum  est,  tractu  tem- 
per is  non  convalescit." 


MISSTATEMENTS  OF  CATHOLIC  FAITH 

AN!) 

NUMEROUS    CHARGES 

AGAINST  THE  CHURCH  AND  HOLY  SEE, 

CORRECTED  AND  REFUTED. 
BV 

S.  V.  RYAN,  BISHOP  OF  BUFFALO. 
PART  II. 


CONTENTS. 

I. — Introductory i 

II. — The  Ephesine  Succession.        ......  4 

III. — Henry  VIII. — To  whom  he  belongs 11 

IV. — The  new  Liturgy — Book  of  Common  Prayer.      .        .  16 

V. — New  Anglican  Ordinal. 19 

VI. — Clement's  Dispensation  to  Henry 21 

VII. — Equivocation — Authority  of  Saints  and  Doctors  of 

the  Church 23 

VIII. — Papal  Infallibility 32 

IX. — Popes  Liberius  and  Honorius 47 

X. — Honorius  Vindicated 52 

XI. — St.   Gregory  the   Great    claiming  and  exercising 

Papal  Supremacy 62 

XII. — Catholic  Bishops  not  Simple  Presbyters  or  mere 

Vicars  of  the  Pope. 74 

XIII.— Teachings  of  the  Ancient  Fathers  Vindicated     .  81 

XIV. — Canons  of  Nice  and  Ephesus 86 

XV. — The  Catholic  Doctrine  Regarding  Ecclesiastical 

Jurisdiction 03 


MISSTATEMENTS  OF  CATHOLIC  FAITH 

AND 

NUMEROUS     CHARGES    AGAINST    THE    CHURCH 
AND  HOLY  SEE,  CORRECTED  AND  REFUTED. 


I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 


I  HAD  fully  resolved  not  to  notice  the  many  irrele- 
vant questions,  groundless  and  false  assertions  pro- 
fusely scattered  through  the  pages  of  the  little 
pamphlet,  "  Catholics  and  Roman  Catholics,"  by  "An 
Old  Catholic,"  to  which  the  articles  substantially  re- 
produced in  the  preceding  pages,  and  originally  written 
for  the "  Catholic  Union"  were  intended  to  reply. 
However,  as  the  specious  and  misleading  statements, 
put  forward  with  a  certain  air  of  plausibility  and  con- 
fidence might,  if  left  unchallenged,  impose  on  those 
who  have  no  access  to  original  documents  or  works  of 
reference,  I  have,  on  second  thought,  deemed  it  in- 
cumbent on  me,  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  Catholic 
faith,  to  rectify  the  principal  misstatements  of  "  Old 
Catholic,"  even  at  the  risk  of  swelling  this  little 
publication  to  unexpected  proportions. 

I 


2  Iff  TROD  UCTOR  Y. 

The  discussion  of  these  matters  will,  in  my  opinion, 
prove  how  easily  people  may  be  imposed  on  by  un- 
grounded statements,  how  cautious  we  should  be  in 
giving  credence  to  authorities  cited  at  second-hand,  and 
how  sadly  deficient  in  accurate  information  regarding 
the  doctrines,  traditions  and  history  of  the  Church  even 
intelligent  and  otherwise  well-educated  Churchmen 
often  are  whose  reading  and  studies,  ministerial  labors 
and  professional  duties  seem  to  be  directed  to  the  single 
point  of  obscuring  the  claims  of  the  Catholic  Church,  or 
deterring  others  from  the  calm,  dispassionate,  thought- 
ful investigation  of  the  same.  Of  such  we  can  only 
say,  in  the  language  of  one  whom  the  grace  of  God 
and  light  of  the  Divine  Spirit  enabled  to  rise  above 
the  prejudices  of  his  early  education  :  "  Prejudice  is 
always  obstinate,  but  no  prejudice  is  so  wilfully  stub- 
born as  that  which  is  professional.  It  is  bad  enough, 
in  any  case,  that  the  mind  should  be  settled  in  op- 
position to  the  truth,  but  when  a  man  has  made  it  the 
special  business  of  his  life  to  oppose  and  controvert 
that  truth,  his  intelligence  becomes  so  fortified  by  his 
will,  as  to  be  almost  inaccessible.  The  citadel  of  his 
heart  is  well  nigh  impregnable.  *  *  *  His  mind  is 
systematically  warped.  He  is  trained  to  reason  from 
false  principles.  He  becomes,  perhaps,  by  sheer  habit, 
the  champion  of  untruth."  ("  The  Invitation  Heeded  :" 
Dr.  Kent  Stone.)  This  may  explain,  and  if  not  excuse, 
in  some  degree  extenuate  the  blind,  unreasoning  pre- 
judices of  men  who  are  schooled  into  bitter  hostility  to 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  forced  by  their  position  and 
professional  duties  to  repudiate  her  as  the  true  and 
legitimate  spouse  of  Christ,  to  reject  herauthority  and 
deny  her  identity  with  the  Apostolic  Church,  simply 


INTRODUCTORY.  3 

because  these  claims  annihilate  all  their  own  titles,  brand 
them  as  illegitimate,  spurious,  counterfeit.  Yet  we  do 
not  presume  to  judge  how  far  they  are  responsible  for 
errors  which  they  have  inherited  and  prejudices  which 
they  have  unconsciously  imbibed,  religious  predilections 
and  affinities  naturally  springing  from  circumstances 
over  which  they  could  have  no  control,  and  hence  we 
disclaim  any  personal  feeling,  most  sincerely  profess 
to  be  actuated  by  motives  of  Christian  charity  and  love 
of  truth.  And  if  in  anything  we  say  we  appear  to  be 
pointed  and  personal,  it  is  because  of  the  necessity 
of  meeting  particular  charges,  or  misleading  and  in- 
jurious insinuations  against  Catholic  faith  and  practice. 


THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION. 


II. 

THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION. 

'""  I  ""HE  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  conse- 
J-  crated  at  Aries  in  France  (597),  and  thus  intro- 
duced the  Ephesine  succession  from  St.  John,  through 
Irenaeus  and  Photinus."  (Note  1.  Catholics  and  non- 
Catholics.)  We  have  answered  already  that  Augustine 
was  consecrated  bishop  at  Aries  by  Virgilius,  acting  as 
legate  and  vicar  of  Pope  St.  Gregory,  but  the  title 
and  privileges  and  jurisdiction  of  archbishop  were 
afterwards  accorded  to  him  by  Gregory,  Pope  of  Rome, 
not  by  Virgilius  of  Aries,  who  had,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  only  such  jurisdiction  as  Gregory  granted  him  in 
Gaul.  Lingard,  in  his  "Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Church,"  says  :  "Gregory,  whose  zeal  already  predicted 
the  entire  conversion  of  the  octarchy,  commanded  it 
to  be  divided  into  two  ecclesiastical  provinces,  in  each 
of  which  twelve  suffragan  bishops  should  obey  the 
superior  jurisdiction  of  their  metropolitan."  Again,  as 
clear  proof  that  not  only  the  new  Anglo-Saxon  con- 
verts with  their  bishops  and  archbishops,  but  also  the 
ancient  British  Church,  acknowledged  the  authority  of 
the  same  Roman  Pontiff,  Lingard  says :  "  Gregory, 
treading  in  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessor,  Celestine, 
who  two  centuries  before  had  appointed  the  monk 
Palladius  to  the  government  of  the  Scottish  Church, 


THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION. 


5 


invested  Augustine  with  an  extensive  jurisdiction  over 
all  the  bishops  of  the  Britons."  To  show  still  further 
what  little  truth  there  is  in  the  assertion  that  the  Pope 
"  could  never  assert  even  a  patriarchal  authority  over 
England,"  let  us  hear  Dr.  Lingard  still  further:  "Au- 
gustine himself  preferred  Canterbury  to  London  ;  and 
the  metropolitical  dignity  was  secured  to  the  former 
by  the  rescripts  of  succeeding  Pontiffs."  Again,  Pope 
Vitalian  placed  Theodore,  an  aged  monk,  in  the  see  of 
Canterbury,  and  "  invested  him  with  an  extensive  juris- 
diction, similar  to  that  which  Gregory  had  conferred  on 
St.  Augustine." 

But  let  us  now  see  how  the  archbishop  of  Aries,  who 
consecrated  Augustine,  acknowledged  the  authority  and 
supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  Gregory  the  Great, 
over  the  churches  of  Gaul.  In  the  year  595,  two  years 
before  he  consecrated  Augustine,  Virgilius  wrote,  and 
had  King  Childebert  II.  write,  to  Gregory,  asking  the 
pallium  and  the  dignity  of  vicar  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
with  which  the  greater  part  of  his  predecessors  had 
been  honored.  In  the  month  of  August  of  the  same 
year,  Gregory  writes  to  him  (L.  5,  Epist.  liii.)  granting 
his  request,  and  among  other  things  says  :  "  I  am  very 
far  from  suspecting  that  in  asking  the  use  of  the  pal- 
lium and  the  vicarship  of  the  Apostolic  See,  you 
thought  only  of  procuring  for  yourself  a  passing  power 
and  an  exterior  decoration.  I  prefer  to  believe  that 
knowing — for  no  one  can  ignore  it — whence  the  faith 
was  propagated  over  Gaul,  you  wished  in  addressing 
yourself  to  the  Apostolic  See,  according  to  ancient 
custom,  to  act  like  a  good  son,  who  has  recourse  to 
the  bosom  of  the  Church,  his  mother."  He  concludes 
his  letter  thus:    ''We   establish    your  fraternity   our 


6  THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION. 

vicar  in  the  churches  of  the  kingdom  of  our  most  ex- 
cellent son,  Childebert,  without  prejudice  to  the  rights 
of  the  metropolitans.  We  send  you  also  the  pallium, 
which  you  will  make  use  of  only  in  the  church  and 
during  the  Mass.  If  any  bishop  wishes  to  take  a  long 
journey,  he  will  not  do  it  without  permission  of  your 
holiness.  If  any  question  of  faith,  or  any  other  diffi- 
cult affair  come  up,  you  will  assemble  twelve  bishops 
to  take  cognizance  of  it.  If  it  cannot  be  decided,  you 
will  refer  the  judgment  to  us."  He  wrote  at  the  same 
time,  in  the  same  sense,  to  the  bishops,  exhorting 
them  to  submit  to  the  new  vicar  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  as  the  Angels  of  Heaven,  though  without  sin, 
are  subordinate  one  to  another ;  and  to  King  Childe- 
bert, begging  him  to  support  by  his  authority  what  he 
had  regulated  in  favor  of  Virgilius,  and  for  the  sake  of 
God  and  St.  Peter  to  cause  the  decrees  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See  to  be  observed  in  his  states.  (Works  of 
S.  G.,  L.  5,  Epist.  liv.  et  lv.)  This,  I  should  say,  would 
make  the  great  St.  Gregory,  in  the  6th  century  justly 
styled  the  Apostle  of  England,  a  good  enough  Pope  of 
the  19th  century.  But  of  this  we  will  have  more  to  say 
hereafter.  Now  we  are  prepared  to  examine  the  ques- 
tion of  the  "  Ephesine  succession  from  St.  John,  through 
Irenaeusand  Photinus."  We  should  have  said,  through 
Photinus  and  Irenseus,  for  the  latter  succeeded  the 
former  in  the  see  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  177. 

Now,  we  would  greatly  desire  to  see  any  one  trace 
the  succession  of  Virgilius  of  Aries  to  St.  Photinus  of 
Lyons,  and  then  trace  St.  Photinus  to  St.  John,  in  or- 
der to  bring  the  Ephesine  succession  down  to  the 
bishop  of  Western  New  York.  It  is  simply  ridiculous 
to  talk  about  the  Ephesine  succession,  and  no  one  fa- 


THE  EPHESIN&  SUCCESSION.  y 

miliar  with  ecclesiastical  history,  or  with  those  saintly 
and  historic  names  of  the  ancient  Church  of  France 
could  commit  himself  to  such  an  absurdity.  The 
see  of  Aries  was  founded  by  bishops  sent  directlyfrom 
Rome.  St.  Trophimus,  its  first  bishop,  was  sent,  ac- 
cording to  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  from  Rome  to  Aries 
in  the  year  250,  during  the  reign  of  Decius,  and  the 
Pontificate  of  Pope  Fabian.  Later  French  writers 
maintain  that  he  was  sent  by  St.  Peter  himself,  during 
the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  and  in  proof  here- 
of, they  cite  a  letter  of  nineteen  bishops,  written  to 
Pope  Leo,  praying  him  to  restore  to  the  metropolitan 
see  of  Aries  the  privileges  which  had  been  wrested 
from  it.  "  It  is  a  matter  well  known,"  the  letter  goes 
on  to  say,  "to  all  Gaul,  and  to  the  Holy  Roman 
Church,  that  Aries,  the  first  city  of  Gaul,  has  the 
honor  of  having  received  the  faith  from  St.  Peter 
through  Bishop  Trophimus,  and  that  it  spread  thence 
to  the  other  provinces  of  Gaul."  These  particulars  we 
have  taken  from  the  excellent  English  translation  of 
Alzog's  "  Universal  Church  History,"  by  the  lamented 
Dr.  Pabisch  and  Rev.  Thos.  S.  Byrne  (vol.  i.,  page  246). 
Whether  the  translator's  learned  observations  will  con- 
vince the  reader  that  Aries  owes  its  foundation  to  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles  or  not,  the  discussion  proves 
conclusively  that  Aries  does  not  derive  its  succession, 
its  orders  or  its  mission  frotrT Lyons  or  from  Ephesus, 
but  from  Rome,  and  that  Virgilius  goes  back  through 
Trophimus  to  either  Fabian  or  Peter,  and  not  through 
Irenaeus  or  Photinus  to  St.  John.  But  now,  suppose 
we  get  to  Lyons,  and  to  Irenaeus,  who  succeeded  St. 
Photinus,  martyred  in  177,  how  can  we  find  our  way  to 
Ephesus  and  St.  John  ? 


8  THE  EP  HE  SINE  SUCCESSION. 

Rev  Alban  Butler  tells,  us  on  the  authority  of  St. 
Gregory  of  Tours,  that  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and 
disciple  of  St.  John,  and  ordained  by  him,  sent  St. 
Irenaeus  to  Lyons.  But  he  was  not  yet  a  priest,  but 
was  ordained  a  priest  of  the  Church  of  Lyons  by  St. 
Photinus,  its  first  bishop,  to  whom  he  succeeded. 
Though  a  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp,  from  whom  he  de- 
rived his  doctrine,  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  or 
pretence  that  he  exercised  his  orders,  or  his  mission 
under  other  authority  than  that  of  Rome,  and  as  an 
unanswerable  proof  that  even  then,  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, the  Churches  of  Gaul,  and  the  Church  of  Lyons 
in  particular,  acknowledged  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  St.  Irenaeus  was  actually  sent  by 
the  Church  of  Lyons,  as  we  learn  from  Eusebius  and 
St.  Jerome,  to  entreat  Pope  Eleutherius  not  to  cut  the 
Orientals  off  from  communion  with  the  Church  on  ac- 
count of  their  difference  about  the  celebration  of 
Easter.  But  does  St.  Irenaeus  himself  appeal  to  the 
Ephesine  succession  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  doctrine 
and  the  Apostolicity  of  his  faith  and  his  lawful  descent 
from  the  Apostles?  In  his  third  book  (Contra  hereses, 
chap,  iii.),  he  says  that  most  assuredly  the  Apostles  de- 
livered the  truth  and  the  mysteries  of  faith  to  their 
successors,  and  to  them  we  must  go  to  learn  the  same, 
but  especially  "to  the  greatest  Church  and  most  an- 
cient and  known  to  all,  founded  at  Rome  by  the  two 
most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  which  retains 
the  traditions  received  from  them  and  derived  through 
a  succession  of  bishops  down  to  us.  For  with  this 
Church,  on  account  of  the  more  powerful  principality, 
it  is  necessary  that  every  Church,  that  is,  the  faithful 
who  are  in  every  direction,  should  agree."  (S.  lien,,  I.. 
3,  c.  iii.) 


THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION.  g 

He  then  enumerates  the  Pontiffs  from  Peter  to 
Eleutherius,  then  reigning,  and  to  this  succession  in  the 
See  of  Rome,  and  not  to  the  Ephesine  succession,  does 
Irenaeus  appeal.  To  the  same  did  St.  Augustine  ap- 
peal. To  the  same  Apostolic  See  do  we  appeal,  repeat- 
ing again  that  the  See  of  Rome  is  the  only  Apostolic 
See,  whence  it  is  at  all  possible  for  Christian  prelate 
or  priest  to  trace  his  Apostolical  pedigree  and 
descent.  Happy,  then,  for  our  episcopal  claimant  of 
Apostolical  succession  if  he  can  "  show  his  line  going 
direct  to. Rome,  by  many  points,"  even  if,  as  he  con- 
fesses, "it  is  just  there' that  the  greatest  confusion 
occurs;  so  that  we  do  not  think  much  of  it." 

LINKS  OF  ANGLICAN    SUCCESSION    OF  UNSAVORY  ODOR. 

Of  course,  since  he  must  recur  to  the  Popes  for  his  suc- 
cession, it  will  be  his  business,  not  ours,  to  determine 
which  of  the  three  rival.  Popes  was  the  true  Pope  when 
Gregory  XII.  consecrated  Chichele.  As  he  cannot 
again  claim  succession  through  Aries  to  Ephesus,  he 
must  go  to  Rome  for  all  his  right  and  title  to  be  a 
"  corporate  witness,"  and  in  his  desperate  attempt  to 
get  there,  vaulting  with  a  bound  the  wide  and  deep 
chasm  separating  Parker  from  Pole,  he  goes  through 
Scorey  (throwing  Barlow  overboard)  and  Cranmer  to 
Beaufort,  of  whom  he  says :  "  I  have  now  reached  the 
name  of  one  of  the  worst  characters  in  the  Anglican 
succession."  Strange  that  he  should  stop  in  this  un- 
savory spot,  yet  he  thinks  that  he  ought  not  be  expected 
to  go  further,  "  for  Beaufort  was  just  the  kind  of  a 
man  to  please  a  Pope."  and  hence  I  suppose  a  good 
enough  man  to  transmit  Anglican  orders.  As,  how- 
ever, he'mentions,  and  very  earnestly,  that  :  "  The  sue- 


I0  THE  EPHESINE  SUCCESSION. 

cession  by  which  Christ  Himself  'came  in  the  flesh,'  is 
disfigured  by  many  unworthy  names,  besides  that  of 
Rahab  ;  and  the  Scriptures  have  reached  us  through 
many  unworthy  hands,"  I  am  saved  the  trouble  of 
defending  or  justifying  those  Popes  "  whose  abominable 
lives,"  he  tells  us,  "were  the  by-word  of  their  times." 
Impartial  history  has  done  tardy  justice  to  many  of  the 
maligned  Pontiffs  of  the  middle  ages,  but  the  subject 
matter  under  discussion  debars  me  from  entering  more 
lengthily  into  the  history  of  these  ages  and  these  Pon- 
tiffs, nor  have  I  the  slightest  inclination  to  shield  any  of 
the  very  few  unworthy  occuparfts  of  the  Pontifical  throne 
from  merited  censure.  But  neither  the  Church  nor  the 
Papacy  is  responsible  for  their  personal  views,  nor  is  the 
purity  of  Christian  doctrines  blackened  or  defiled  by  the 
unchristian  lives  of  those  who  neglect  the  teachings  of 
the  Church,  whether  they  be  of  high  or  low  degree, 
whether  simple  faithful,  or  masters  in  Israel.  "The 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  have  sitten  on  the  chair  of 
Moses.  All  things,  therefore,  whatsoever  they  shall 
say  to  you,  observe  and  do,  but  according  to  their 
works,  do  ye  not ;  for  they  say  and  do  not."  (Matt, 
xxiii.  2,  3.)  At  least  after  the  admissions'  made 
above,  objections  of  this  kind  will  come  with  very  bad 
grace  from  those  who  own  descent  from  immoral  char- 
acters, and  from  a  line  disgraced  by  Pontiffs  "  com- 
pared with  whom  Henry  VIII.  is  almost  pure." 


J/ EN  A'  V  VJJI.—  TO    WHOM  HE  BELONGS.  \  \ 


III. 
HENRY   VIII.— TO    WHOM  HE   BELONGS. 

JUST  here  we  may  as  well  remark  that  "  Old  Catho- 
lic" is  not  in  love  with  the  first  royal  Head  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  and  has  "  no  disposition  to  take  him 
off  of  the  hands  of  those  to  whom  he  exclusively  be- 
longs— the  Roman  Catholics."  Well,  we  confess  he 
was  once  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  a  staunch  champion 
of  the  Papacy,  and  from  a  Pope  received  the  title  of 
"Defender  of  the  Faith,"  and  that  "  he  never  fully  de- 
serted his  faith  ;  but  he  allowed  his  passion  to  blind  his 
eyes  and  impel  him  to  the  greatest  of  scandals." 

Then  he  severed  himself  from  Rome,  then  he  re- 
jected the  authority  of  the  Pope,  then  he  started  the 
"  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,"  and  had 
himself  proclaimed  its  head  by  a  subservient  Parlia- 
ment and  a  weak,  servile  clergy  ;  he  threw  off  spiritual 
allegiance  to  the  Pope, -imposed  the  oath  of  royal 
supremacy  on  the  English  realm,  and  thus  started  what 
Edward  and  Elizabeth  afterwards  worked  into  shape  ; 
and  that  impartial ' sicular  authority  in  the  "Saturday  Re- 
view" who  ventures  to  write  that,  "there  is  a  perfect 
legal  and  historical  identity,  so  to  speak,  of  person, 
between  the  Church  of  England  before  the  Reforma- 
tion and  the  Church  of  England  after  the  Reformation," 
goes   very  near   establishing    in    our    minds    his    oil  Q 


12  HENRY   VIII.— TO  WHOM  HE  BELONGS. 

identity  with  the  gentleman  who  quotes  him,  and  who 
says,  "that  Henry  merely  continued  the  Church  as  he 
found  it,"  and  "  as  for  her  (Queen  Elizabeth)  estab- 
lishing the  Church  of  England  in  any  sense  other  than 
that  in  which  it  was  the  law  of  the  land  under  the 
Plantagenets  and  the  Papacy,  is  a  very  ignorant  mis- 
take." In  both,  there  is  such  assurance,  such  defiance 
of  history,  and  implicit  reliance  on  the  ignorance  of 
their  readers,  that  we  can  hardly  go  wrong  in  tracing 
them  to  the  same  source,  and  assigning  them  the  same 
paternity.  Queen  Mary,  we  are  again  told,  "  estab- 
lished the  Roman  hierarchy  by  law,  '  by  queen  and 
Parliament,'  while  Henry  never  did  anything  of  the 
kind."  True,  indeed,  Henry  never  did  anything  of  the 
kind,  because  he  found  the  Roman  hierarchy  existing 
in  England  not  only  since  Augustine  came  from  Rome 
to  convert  the  Angli,  but  ever  since  a  Pope  sent  the 
first  missionaries  to  convert  the  ancient  Britons — a 
Roman  hierarchy,  exercising  its  authority  under  the 
jurisdiction  and  in  the  communion  of  the  holy  Roman 
See,  until  by  legal  enactment,  by  king  and  Parlia- 
ment, he  and  his  son  Edward  severed  that  commun- 
ion cemented  by  the  tradition  of  ages,  by  im- 
memorial usages,  arrogating  to  themselves  spiritual 
jurisdiction  over  the  realm,  and  not  only  appointing, 
but  confirming,  empowering,  and  even  by  newly-devised 
forms  consecrating  a  new  hierarchy,  thus  establishing 
a  New  Church,  whose  very  legal  title,  the  name  im- 
posed on  it  at  its  birth — not  Church  of  England, 
which  St.  Gregory  recognized,  and  of  which  he  is 
justly  styled  the  Apostle — but  "Church  of  England 
by  law  established,"  belies  its  claim  to  Apostolical 
origin,  stamps  it  as  a  royal  and  parliamentary  founda- 
tion, a  modern  invention,  a  sect. 


HENRY  VIII.— TO    WHOM  HE  BELONGS- 


13 


Mary's  attempt  was  then,  not  to  erect  the  Roman  hier- 
archy by  law',  but  to  repeal  the  laws  enacted  in  the  two 
previous  reigns,  and  to  restore  the  Church  of  England 
to  the  condition  in  which  it  was  before  "  Henry's 
passions  blinded  him  and  impelled  him  to  the  greatest 
of  scandals."  "  Henry  belonged  to  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics." True,  so  did  Cranmer  once,  so  did  Calvin,  so 
did  Luther,  so  did  Pelagius,  so  did  Donatus,  so  did  Arius, 
so  did  all  the  heretics  of  ancient  times,  but  they  fell  away, 
they  apostatized,  they  left  the  only  ark  of  safety,  the 
One,  Holy,  and  Apostolic  Church.  The  infamous  traitor 
Judas  was  once  a  dis.ciple,  nay,  even  a  chosen  Apostle 
of  our  Lord,  and  you  may  as  well  charge  our  Lord  and 
His  Apostles  and  the  Christian  name  with  the  infamy 
and  fearful  crime  of  that  arch-traitor,  as  to  make  the 
Catholic  Church  responsible  for  the  crimes  of  Henry 
after  he  severed  himself  from  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  See,  and  had  himself  proclaimed  Supreme  in 
spirituals  as  well  as  temporals.  It  is  true,  and  no 
Catholic,  as  far  as  we  know,  will  deny  what  the  late 
Welby  Pugin  asserts,  that  England  presents  "  a  fearful 
example  of  a  Catholic  nation  betrayed  by  a  corrupted 
Catholic  hierarchy.  Henry  is  declared  the  Suprimum 
Caput  of  England's  Church  ;  not  voce  populi,  but  by  the 
voice  of  convocation ;  the  Church  is  sacrificed,  the  people 
are  sacrificed,  and  the  actors  in  this  vile  surrender  are 
the  true  and  lawful  bishops  and  clergy  of  England."  It 
is  also  true  that,  "all  the  terrible  executions  of  Henry's 
dreadful  reign  were  perpetrated  before  the  externals  of 
the  old  religion  were  altered,"  but  it  is  not  true  that  it 
was  before  the  system  of  Protestantism  was  broached,  or 
the  essentials  of  the  Catholic  Church  denied.  For  the 
wretched  system  was  broached,  and  the  Catholic  faith  in 


14  HENRY  VIII.  — TO    WHOM  HE  BELONGS. 

its  essentials  was  rejected  when  the  authority  of  the 
Church  and  the  primacy  of  the  Pope  were  rejected  and 
denied.  It  is  also  true  that  by  his  will  he  ordained  that 
masses  should  be  celebrated  for  his  soul,  for  the  exter- 
nals of  the  old  religion,  the  ancient  liturgy,  the  old  Cath- 
olic Missals  and  Pontificals  were  not  yet  altered,  and  the 
masses  that  were  said  by  an  Augustine,  a  Cuthbert,  *a 
Wilfrid,  an  Anselm,  a  Dunstan,  a  Bede,  and  thousands 
of  saints  of  the  English  Church,  were  still  said  in 
Henry's  time,  and  even  Cranmer  himself,  who  is  ap- 
plauded as  a  model  reformer,  offered  Mass  for  the  re- 
pose of  the  soul  of  Francis  I.,  King  of  France,  on  the 
19th  of  June,  1547.  "The  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
Cranmer,  with  eight  other  bishops  in  their  richest  Pon- 
tifical habits,  sung  a  mass  of  Requiem."  (Collier  ii., 
229,  as  quoted  by  Dodd.) 

Let  me  quote  the  same  historian,  Dodd,  in  answer  to 
the  charge  that  Henry's  evil  conduct  may  be  laid  at 
the  door  of  the  Catholic  Church.  "To  charge  the 
scandalous  part  of  Henry's  life  upon  his  popish  educa- 
tion, is  so  groundless  an  aspersion,  that  it  is  inconsis- 
tent with  ever)'  circumstance  of  the  facts.  While  he 
lived  like  other  princes,  in  due  subjection  to  the  See  of 
Rome  in  all  spiritual  matters,  no  one  had  a  better 
character;  but  as  the  first  step  of  unfortunate  children 
is  disobedience  to  their  parents,  this  seems  to  have  been 
the  origin  of  Henry's  disorderly  life ;  who  no  sooner 
had  broke  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church,  but  he  ranged 
without  control  through  all  the  paths  of  vice.  Per- 
haps Catholics  will  not  recriminate  so  closely  in  their 
reflections,  as  to  charge  the  monstrous  crimes  he  was 
guilty  of  upon  the  reformers'  principles,  though  some  of 
his  advisers,  who  put  him  on  the  method  of  Reformation, 


HENRY  I'll!.  — TO   WHOM  HE  BEI.OXGS. 


15 


were  capable  of  delivering  such  lessons):  yet  it  has 
always  been  an  observation,  both  in  private  life,  and  in 
the  fate  of  nations,  that  a  defection  from  the  Universal 
Church  had  two  dismal  consequences,  free  thinking  as 
to  religion,  and  a  boundless  liberty  as  to  morals." 
(Part  i.,  Art.  vi.,  p.  323). 


i6 


THE  NEW  LITURGY 


IV. 

THE   NEW  LITURGY — BOOK   OF   COMMON   PRAYER. 

BUT  is  it  not  strange  to  hear  the  objection  that 
Henry  belonged  to  the  Catholics  because  masses 
were  said  for  him,  when  it  is  known  that  there  was 
in  England  no  other  form  of  public  worship,  no  other 
liturgy,  until  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.?  Is  it  not 
known  that  the  commission  which  he  appointed  in  the 
year  1554,  ''pretending  to  work  on  the  plan  of  the  four 
Rituals  hitherto  used  in  England,  viz.,  Sarum,  York, 
Bangor  and  Lincoln,  compiled  the  '  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  ?'  "  Is  it  not  known  that  at  this  time  the  so-called 
reformers  were  fearfully  mixed  up  and  divided  in  re- 
gard to  the  holy  Mass  ?  "  One  while  they  were  disposed 
to  retain  the  names,  sacrifice  and  mass,  and  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence  also  the  word  altar." 

Now,  the  altar  was  to  be  called  a  table,  which  was 
removed  some  distance  from  the  wall,  again  placed  in 
the  middle  of  the  chancel,  and  once  more  restored  to 
its  original  place,  where  the  high  altar  stood.  "On 
which  occasion,  Dr.  Hugh  Weston  merrily  said,  'The 
reformation  was  like  an  ape,  not  knowing  which  way 
to  turn  his  tail.'  "  (Foxe,  iii,  76.)  This  new  liturgy  en- 
titled "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  and  made  obli- 
gatory under  pains  and  penalties  by  act  of  Parliament 
(2  and  3,  Edward  VI.,  c.  1),  was  thus  forced  on  the  English 


THE  NEW  LITURGY. 


17 


Church,  though  the  bishops  of  Norwich,  Hereford, 
Chichester  and  Westminster,  who  were  on  the  com- 
mittee for  drawing  up  the  bill,  protested  against  it ; 
(Collier  ii.,  364),  and  four  other  bishops  who  had  been 
on  the  committee,  namely,  those  of  London,  Durham, 
Carlisle  and  Worcester,  were  equally  opposed  to  it. 
(Lords'Journal  i.,  33 1 ,  citedby  Rev.  Mr.  Tierney, F.S.A.) 
The  act  of  Parliament  providing  for  "  uniformity  of 
service  and  administration  of  sacraments  throughout 
the  realm,"  passed  January  15th,  1549,  became  obli- 
gatory on  the  Feast  of  Pentecost  of  that  year.  "  On 
that  day,"  says  Rev.  Mr.  Tierney,  "  the  English  service 
was  for  the  first  time  solemnly  performed  in  the 
Cathedral  of  St.  Pauls'.  '  As  to  the  clergy,  although  to 
escape  pains  and  penalties,  they  had  been  induced  to  con- 
form to  the  provisions  of  the  act,  they  were  not  disposed 
to  abandon  the  ancient  liturgy;  the  bishop  (Bonner) 
was  known,  moreover,  to  be  favorable  to  their  views ;  and 
accordingly,  while  the  common  prayer  was  recited 
publicly  at  the  high  altar,  Mass  continued  to  be  pri. 
vately  celebrated  in  the  different  chapels  of  the 
Cathedral,"  just  the  same,  we  may  remark,  as  it  is  to- 
day in  the  different  chapels  of  our  own  Cathedral.  Thus 
we  see  how,  and  when,  and  by  whom  the  Mass  was  abol- 
ished in  England.  Soon  after  came  another  order  to  the 
bishops  from  the  king,  to- burn  and  destroy  all  the  missals, 
antiphoners,  graduals,  etc.,  previously  used  in  the 
churches,  and  as  the  bishops  were  unwilling  to  enforce, 
and  the  clergy  to  obey  the  royal  mandate,  a  bill  was  passed 
(3  and  4,  Edward  VI.,  10.)  by  which  any  person  refusing 
to  surrender,  or  any  archbishop,  bishop,  or  other  officer 
neglecting  to  destroy,  such  books,  should  suffer  fine  or 
imprisonment,  as  the  case  might  be.     This  common 


18  THE  NEW  LITURGY. 

prayer  established  in  1549,  was  revised  and  altered  in 
1552,  and  again  under  Elizabeth  in  1559,  again  under 
King  James  I.  in  1604,  and  afterwards  under  Charles  II. 
in  1662.  Thus  we  have  a  history  of  the  Anglican  form 
of  public  worship,  or  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  ori- 
ginating with  the  novelties  of  the  Reformation,  forced  by 
king  and  Parliament  upon  the  Church,  revised,  altered 
and  modified  to  suit  and  give  expression  to  the  ever- 
changing  faith  of  a  Church  that  had  broken  loose  from 
the  chair  of  Peter,  the  Reformers  thus  instinctively  and 
perhaps  unconciously  affirming  the  Catholic  principle 
that  a  Church's  liturgy  or  form  of  prayer  is  the  truest 
expression  of  a  people's  faith,  which  Pope  Celestine  I. 
thus  enunciates,  writing  (Epis.  viii.)  to  the  bishops  of 
Gaul :  "Ut  legem  credendi,  lex  statuat  sttpplicandi." 


NEW  ANGLICAN  ORDINAL.  Ig 


NEW  ANGLICAN  ORDINAL. 

HAVING  changed  the  ancient  liturgy  of  the 
Church,  and  destroyed  the  old  missals  used  in 
the  Church  of  England  from  time  immemorial,  and 
thus  insensibly  robbed  the  people  of  their  faith  by  a 
mutilated  and  deceptive  form  of  public  prayer,  craftily 
obscuring  and  implicitly  denying  the  very  essence  of 
sacrifice,  the  next  step  of  the  wily  reformers,  headed 
by  Cranmer,  who,  together  with  a  wife  had  smuggled 
into  England  from  foreign  lands  many  of  the  errors  of 
Luther  and  Calvin,  was  to  devise  an  Ordinal  or  form 
of  ordination  to  accompany  the  Common  Prayer  Book, 
which  should  ignore  and  obliterate  the  very  idea,  char- 
acter and  office  of  the  priesthood.  During  the  first 
two  years  of  Edward's  reign,  no  essential  change  was 
made  in  the  Roman  Pontifical.  Only  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance was  changed,  and  hence  all  those  priests  or- 
dained and  bishops  consecrated  during  this  time,  though 
schismatics,  and  excommunicated  and  deprived  of  all 
power  of  jurisdiction,  had  valid  orders,  were  validly, 
though  illicitly  (www  rite),  ordained  and  consecrated, 
and  they  could  be,  and  were  with  proper  dispensations  in 
the  time  of  Mary  allowed  again  to  exercise  their  orders, 
recognized  as  bishops  and  priests.  But  in  1550  Parlia- 
ment passed  an  act  devising  a  new  method  and  "  uni- 


20  NEW  ANGLICAN  ORDINAL. 

form-  fashion  and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating 
bishops,  priests,  deacons  or  ministers  of  the  Church," 
and  for  not  concurring  in  which  at  least  four  bishops 
were  deprived.  This  new  Ordinal,  established  by  au- 
thority of  Edward's  Parliament,  was  again  confirmed  in 
1552  (5  and  6  Edward  VI.,  c.  I.),  when  the  Prayer  Book 
was  revised.  In  again  examining  carefully  the  history 
of  the  introduction  of  the  Prayer  Book  and  Ordinal, 
we  cannot  understand  how  any  one  can  assert  that 
the  acts  of  Parliament  innovated  nothing,  and  only 
made  the  law  of  the  land  what  was  before  the  ecclesi- 
astical law.  The  very  reverse  is  transparent.  And 
we  may  be  allowed  here  again  to  quote  the  historian 
Dodd,  who  asserts  that  this  Ordinal  of  Edward,  that  by 
which  Parker  is  said  to  have  been  consecrated,  "  was  in 
the  ensuing  reign  (of  Mary)  examined  and  declared  to 
be  insufficient  and  invalid  as  to  the  purposes  of  conse- 
crating a  true  ministry,"  because,  among  other  reasons, 
"  there  was  no  form  of  words  specifying  the  order  that 
was  conferred,  and  particularly,  no  words  or  ceremony 
made  use  of,  to  express  the  power  of  absolving,  or 
offering  sacrifice." 


CLEMENT'S  D  ISP  ENS  A  TION  TO  HENR  Y.  21 


VI. 

Clement's  dispensation  to  henry. 

BEFORE  finally  closing  our  historic  review  of  this 
period  of  the  Anglican  establishment,  I  must  call 
attention  to  a  strange  error,  or  shall  we  call  it,  fabrica- 
tion ? 

"The  Pontiff  did  actually  give  Henry  permission 
to  have  two  wives  at  once."  But,  continues  our 
honest  controversialist,  who,  in  this  instance  at  least, 
seems  to  have  descended  not  to  equivocation  merely, 
but  to  bare-faced  falsification  :  "  Bad  as  Henry  was,  he 
had  more  conscience,  it  would  seem,  than  this  compli- 
ant Pope,  who,  anxious  to  be  on  good  terms  alike  with 
Henry  and  Charles,  could  only  continue  to  please  them 
both  by  authorizing  Henry  to  practise  bigamy." 
There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  It  is  a  falsehood, 
manufactured  out  of  whole  cloth,  and  the  pretence  of 
quoting  Lingard  makes  the  fabrication  all  the  more' 
glaring.  Dr.  Lingard  ("  History  of  England,"  vol.  vi. ,  c. 
iii.)  acknowledges  that  the  Pope,  Clement  VII.,  signed 
a  document  by  which  "  he  granted  to  Henry  a  dis- 
pensation to  marry,  in  the  place  of  Catharine,  any  other 
woman  whomsoever,  even  if  she  were  already  promised 
to  another,  or  related  to  himself  in  the  first  degree  of 
affinity."  We  have  italicized  the  words  in  the  place  of 
Catharine,  showing  it  was  not  a  permission  to  have  two 


22  CLEMENT'S  D  ISP  ENS  A  TION  TO  HENRY. 

wives  at  once,  or  an  authorization  to  practise  bigamy. 
Dr.  Lingard,  in  a  note  on  this  same  passage,  tells  the 
reason  why  such  a  dispensation  was  deemed  necessary, 
and  where  the  Bull  of  dispensation  could  be  found. 
Now,  as  any  one  may  see  at  a  glance,  from  the  words  of 
Dr.  Lingard,  and  more  clearly  still  from  the  document 
sent  from  England  and  signed  by  Clement,  A.  D.  1527, 
and  of  his  Pontificate  the  fifth,  that  the  dispensation 
was  granted  conditionally,  to  authorize  Henry  to  con- 
tract a  valid  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  if,  in  the  in- 
vestigation then  going  on  before  a  commission  em- 
powered by  the  Pontiff  himself,  it  were  found  that  the 
marriage  of  Henry  with  Catharine  was  null  and  in- 
valid. The  dispensation  was  asked,  as  we  read  in  the 
document  itself:  "  in.  eventum  declarations  nullitatis 
matrimonii"  and  granted:  " Si  contingat  matrimon- 
ium  cum  praefata  Catharina,  alias  contractum,  milium 
fuisse,  et  esse;"  Now,  how  any  man  can,  with  these 
documents  before  him,  assert  that  the  Pope  granted  to 
Henry  permission  to  have  two  wives  at  once,  or  to  prac- 
tise bigamy,  is  more  than  I  can  understand,  and  I  must 
repeat  that  it  appears  to  me  not  an  equivocation,  but 
a  bare-faced  falsification,  worthy  of  those,  "  who 
reck  not  what  they  do  or  say  to  damage  an  adversary." 


TR U TH  AND  EQ Ul  VOCA  TION.  2% 


VII. 

EQUIVOCATION— AUTHORITY  OF  SAINTS  AND  DOCTORS 
OF  THE  CHURCH. 

WHILST  thus  retorting  in  his  own  words,  I  must, 
for  the  sake  of  truth  and  in  self-vindication, 
notice  and  repel  the  injurious  charges  and  insinuations 
contained  in  the  following  extracts  from  the  same 
pamphlet,  and  harped  upon  in  season  and  out  of  season 
by  the  same  writer,  to  throw  discredit  on  Catholic 
theology,  and  our  veracity  and  regard  for  the  truth. 
"  I  have  no  Liguori  permitting  me  by  infallible  author- 
ity to  say  anything  but  plain  truth:"  "  His  infallible 
master  has  commended  in  a  superlative  degree  the 
teaching  of  Alphonsus  de  Liguori,  by  which  he  is  in- 
structed to  violate  even  an  oath,  whenever  '  the  good  of 
the  Church'  conflicts  with  keeping  it.  It  is  lawful  for 
a  Roman  Catholic, '  for  a  good  cause,  to  use  equivoca- 
tion, in  the  modes  laid  down,  and  to  confirm  it  with  an 
oath'  So  says  the  Papal  authority."  We  will  not 
now  advert  to  the  questionable  courtesy  of  the  expres- 
sion, his  infallible  master,  or  the  misuse  of  the  words, 
Papal  authority,  applied  to  St.  Liguori's  treatise  on 
moral  theology,  or  the  misapplication  of  the  term  in- 
fallible. I  purpose  simply  to  show  that  the  gentleman 
misconstrues  the  text  of  St.  Liguori,  and  gives  a  mis- 
leading rendering  of  the  very  passage  which  he  cites. 
Taking  it  apart  from  its  context,  he  gives  a  false  coloring 


24  TRUTH  AND  EQ UIVOCA  TION. 

to  the  whole.  "  I  should  be  sorry  to  accuse  him  of 
wilful  mistake,"  but  probably  not  having  the  works 
of  St.  Liguori,  he  has  been  imposed  on  "  by  the 
authors  from  whom  he  borrows  his  statements,"  and 
who  "freely  use  a  license,"  which  neither  Jesuit  nor 
Lignorian  morals,  as  we  know  them,  would  tolerate. 

Then  we  say  it  is  totally  false  that  "  St.  Alphonsus 
d6  Liguori  instructs  us  to  violate  even  an  oath,  when- 
ever the  '  good  of  the  Church'  conflicts  with  keeping  it." 
St.  Alphonsus  does  say — (Lib.  4,  Tract.  2,  de  secundo 
prcecepto  decalogi),  and  this  is  obviously  the  passage 
which  our  friend  pretends  to  give  in  an  English  dress 
— "  His  positis,  certum  est  et  commune  apudomnes,  quod 
ex  just  a  causa  licitum  sit  uti  equivocatione  modis  expositis, 
et  cum  furametito  firmare."  Not,  then,  whenever  the 
good  of  the  Church  conflicts  with  keeping  an  oath  are 
we  instructed  to  violate  it,  nor  does  he  say  that  we 
may  use  equivocation  and  confirm  the  same  with  an 
oath  for  a  good  cause,  but  having  explained  three  dif- 
ferent ways  in  which  equivocation,  or  a  play  upon 
words,  or  the  use  of  double  meaning  expressions,  am- 
phibology, may  be  used,  he  says  simply  that  it  is  the 
certain  and  common  opinion  of  theologians  that  when 
there  is  a  just  cause  it  is  allowable  to  use  equivocation  in 
the  ways  or  manner  laid  down,  and  before  explained, 
and  to  confirm  the  same  with  an  oath.  Now,  we  must 
here  know  what  is  meant  by  ex  justa  causa,  which  is  a 
sine  qua  non,  and  what  are  the  modes  laid  down,  or  the 
manner  in  which  play  on  words,  or  equivocation,  is 
allowable.  When  a  word  or  sentence  has  two  mean- 
ings, and  the  speaker  uses  it  in  one  sense,  and  intends 
his  hearers  to  take  it  in  another,  or  when  an  expression 
may  be  taken  in  a  literal  or  a  spiritual  sense,  as  for  in- 


TRUTH  A ND  EQUIVO CA  TION.  2 5 

stance,  when  our  Lord  said  of  John  the  Baptist :  "  He  is 
Elias,"  and  the  Baptist  himself  said  :  "  I  am  not  Elias." 
Such  a  play  on  words,  St.  Liguori  says,  is  allowable,  and 
when  there  is  a  just  cause  the  same  may  be  confirmed 
with  an  oath,  and  a  just  cause  the  saint  explains  as, 
"  quicumquc  finis  honestus  ad  servanda  bona  spiritui,  vet 
corpori  utilia" 

As  a  recent  writer  on  this  subject  well  says,  "  The 
right  to  plead  '  not  guilty,'  acknowledged  in  our  law,  St. 
Liguori  maintains  to  be,  under  certain  circumstances, 
a  natural  right.  When  a  questioner  has  a  right  to 
the  truth,  then  the  equivocation  is  forbidden,  and  where 
the  saint  would  allow  of  equivocation,  his  Protestant 
critics  would  in  all  probability  lie  more  or  less  clum- 
sily." To  show  that  this  is  not  a  groundless  assertion 
I  will  take  the  liberty  of  making  an  extract  from  the 
admirable  work  of  Dr.  Newman,  "  Apologia  pro  vita 
sua,"  where,  whilst  affirming  that  on  this  point  he 
does  not  follow  the  holy  and  charitable  St.  Liguori, 
but  rather  other  saints  and  doctors  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  he  shows  that  many  good  Protestant  au- 
thorities need  vindication  fully  as  much  as  our  saint. 
"  Now  I  make  this  remark,  first — great  English  au- 
thors, Jeremy  Taylor,  Milton,  Paley,  Johnson,  men  of 
very  distinct  schools  of  thought,  distinctly  say,  that 
under  certain  special  circumstances  it  is  allowable  to 
tell  a  lie.  Taylor  says :  '  To  tell  a  lie  for  charity,  to 
save  a  man's  life,  the  life  of  a  friend,  of  a  husband,  of 
a  prince,  of  a  useful  and  a  public  person,  hath  not  only 
been  done  in  all  times,  but  commended  by  great  and 
wise  and  good  men.  Who  would  not  save  his  father's 
life  at  the  charge  of  a  harmless  lie  from  persecutors  or 
tyrants  ?'  Again  Milton  says :  4  What  man  in  his  senses 


26  TR  UTH  AND  EQ Ul  VOCA  TION. 

would  deny,  that  there  are  those  whom  we  have  the 
best  grounds  for  considering  that  we  ought  to  deceive 
— as  boys,  madmen,  the  sick,  the  intoxicated,  enemies, 
men  in  error,  thieves  ?  I  would  ask,  by  which  of  the 
commandments  is  a  lie  forbidden  ?  You  will  say,  by 
the  ninth.  If,  then,  my  lie  does  not  injure  my  neigh- 
bor, certainly  it  is  not  forbidden  by  this  command- 
ment.' Paley  says  :  '  There  are  falsehoods  which  are 
not  lies,  that  is,  which  are  not  criminal.'  Johnson : 
1  The  general  rule  is,  that  truth  should  never  be  vio- 
lated :  there  must,  however,  be  some  exceptions.  If, 
for  instance,  a  murderer  should  ask  you  which  way  a 
man  has  gone?'  "  The  estimable  and  learned  Dr.,  now 
Cardinal,  Newman  continues  :  "  You  must  not  suppose 
that  a  philosopher  or  moralist  uses  in  his  own  case  the 
license,  which  his  theory  itself  would  allow  him.  A 
man  in  his  own  case  is  guided  by  his  own  conscience ; 
but  in  drawing  out  a  system  of  rules,  he  is  obliged  to  go 
by  logic  and  follow  the  exact  deduction  of  conclusion 
from  conclusion,  and  be  sure  that  the  whole  system  is 
coherent  and  one."  And  as  Dr.  Newman  remarks,  and 
as  we  all  know  from  St.  Liguori's  life,  he  who  by  some 
is  so  flippantly  paraded  as  authorizing  equivocation, 
and  even  lying,  was  most  scrupulous  and  of  singular 
delicacy  of  conscience  on  that  very  point,  so  much  so, 
that  having  been  unwarily  led  into  defending  a  case  on 
false  grounds,  whilst  in  the  profession  of  the  law,  he 
abandoned  his  profession  and  embraced  the  religious 
life. 

I  will  then  only  add  what  Dr.  Newman  so  well  and 
clearly  s^ys  on  this  point  in  the  Appendix  to  the  work 
already  mentioned  :  "Almost  all  authors,  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  admit  that  when  a  just  cause  is  present,  there 


TRUTH  AND  EQUIVOCATION.  27 

is  some  kind  or  other  of  verbal  misleading,  which  is 
not  sin,"  and  the  equivocation  and  play  on  words 
which  St.  Liguori  allows,  is  precisely  such  as  is  not  a 
lie,  is  not  sinful,  and  therefore  ex  justa  causa,  when 
there  is  a  just  cause,  may  be  confirmed  by  an  oath. 
This,  after  all,  is  only  his  opinion  as  a  private  theolo- 
gian, and  the  Church,  much  less  the  infallible  Pope,  must 
not  be  held  responsible  for  his  private  theological  opin- 
ions. Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  his  "  Theologia  Moralis," 
(Tract,  iii.,  c.  xii.,  §  iv.)  thus  speaks  of  equivocation, 
or  ambiguity  of  speech  :  "  It  is  confessed  by  all  Cath- 
olics that  in  the  common  intercourse  of  life,  all  ambig- 
uity of  language  should  be  avoided  :  but  whether  such 
ambiguity  may  ever  be  allowed,  is  a  subject  of  dispute. 
Most  theologians  give  an  affirmative  answer,  provided 
a  grave  cause  urges,  and  from  the  adjuncts  or  circum- 
stances the  mind  of  the  speaker  may  be  gathered, 
although  in  reality  it  is  not  so  gathered."  And  then 
he  instances  examples  of  Holy  Writ,  as  when  Abraham 
counselled  Sara  to  call  herself  his  sister,  hiding  their 
marriage  relations,  and  Isaac  would  have  Rebecca 
called  sister,  rather  than  wife.  So  our  Lord  said  He 
would  not  go  up  to  the  festival  day — not  wishing  to  go 
up  there  publicly,  with  His  disciples,  and  manifest  His 
divinity,  though  intending  to  go  up  afterwards  in 
secret.  (John  vii.,  8,  10.)  He  spoke  of  Lazarus 
sleeping,  and  said  of  the  girl  that  she  was  not  dead. 
(John  xi.,  11.)  He  declared  He  knew  not  the  day  of 
the  judgment  because  it  was  not  to  be  made  known. 
(Mark  xiii.,  32.)  Meaning  His  body,  He  spoke  of  the 
temple,  so  that  the  Jews  understood  Him  to  speak  of 
the  temple  of  Jerusalem.  (John  ii.,  19.)  And  the 
learned  author  quotes  Jeremy  Taylor,  affirming  : 


28  TK  UTH  AND  EQUJ VOCA  TION. 

"  It  is  lawful,  upon  a  just  cause  or  necessity,  to  use  in 
our  answers  and  intercourse,  words  of  divers  significa- 
tion, though  it  does  deceive  him  that  asks."  This  I 
think  is  sufficient  to  show  St.  Liguori  does  not  even  go 
as  far  on  the  subject  of  equivocation  as  other  learned 
and  esteemed  Anglican  authors,  and  that  his  language 
is  garbled,  his  meaning  distorted,  his  teaching  grossly- 
falsified,  when  he  is  said  to  "  teach  us  to  violate  even 
an  oath  whenever  the  good  of  the  Church  conflicts  with 
keeping  it.."  Surely,  he  "  whose  teachings  have  been  com. 
mended  in  a  superlative  degree,"  would  not  contradict 
nor  ignore  the  teachings  of  Pope  Innocent  XI.,  who 
condemned  the  following  proposition: 

"  If  any  one  alone,  or  before  others,  whether  inter- 
rogated, or  of  his  own  prompting,  either  for  the  sake  of 
recreation,  or  any  other  end,  swears  that  he  did  not 
really  do  what  he  did  do,  meaning  in  his  own  mind 
something  else  which  he  did  not  do,  or  some  other 
way,  from  that  in  which  he  did  it,  or  any  other  true 
circumstance,  he  does  not  really  lie,  is  not  a  perjurer." 
No  matter,  then,  what  may  be  the  opinion  of  individ- 
ual theologians  and  casuists  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
misleading  by  equivocation  or  ambiguity  of  language 
in  certain  circumstances  and  with  just  cause,  or  as  to 
cases  when  untruths  are  not  lies :  the  teaching  of  our 
holy  Church  is  that  lying  is  never  lawful,  that  it  is  not 
allowed  to  tell  the  slightest  venial  lie  to  save  the  whole 
world.  Not,  then,  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  nor  to 
secure  the  return  to  her  bosom  of  the  whole  Protes- 
tant world,  could  the  Church  authorize  a  wilful  lie,  much 
less  a  false  oath.  A  lie  is  an  offence  against  God,  for 
which  no  finite  good,  no  conceivable  good  to  the  whole 
human  race,  can  compensate ;  and  besides,  the  catechism 


TR  UTH  AND  EQ UI VOCA  TION.  2g 

of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  is  the  Church's  author- 
ized hand-book  of  Christian  doctrine,  declares:' "  To 
none,  therefore,'  can  it  be  matter  of  doubt,  that  this 
(eighth)  Commandment  condemns  lies  of  every  sort,  as 
these  words  of  David  expressly  declare  :  "Thou  wilt  de- 
stroy all  that  speak  a  lie."  And  again,  "  But  the  evil  con* ' 
sequences  of  lying  are  not  confined  to  individuals  ;  they 
extend  to  society  at  large.  By  duplicity  and  lying,  good 
faith  and  truth,  which  form  the  closest  links  of  human  so- 
ciety, are  dissolved ;  confusion  ensues ;  and  men  seem 
to  differ  in  nothing.from  demons."  I  have  dwelt  on  this 
point  so  fully  because  again  and  again  these  same  parties 
have  belied  ourselves  and  our  Church,  charging  us  with 
holding  doctrines  which  the  Church  repudiates  and 
rejects,  and  they  never  tire  of  throwing  in  our  teeth 
the  "  license  of  Jesuit  and  Liguorian  morals."  In  ad- 
dition to  misconstruing,  distorting  and  falsifying  the 
teaching  of  our  saints  and  doctors,  they  will  still  insist 
that  these  authors,  because  canonized  saints  and  doc- 
tors of  the  Church;  are  the  very  mouth-peices  of  the 
Church,  and    speak   with    Papal,  and  even  infallible, 

authority. 

To  set  at  rest  forever  this  false  notion  so  industri- 
ously circulated,  we  will  again  ask  a  learned  friend 
to  speak  for  us.  Dr.  Newman,  in  the  appendix  to  his 
"Apologia  pro  vita  sua,"  says:  "It  is  supposed  by 
Protestants  that,  because  St.  Alfonso's  writings  have 
had  such  high  commendations  bestowed  upon  them 
by  authority,  therefore  they  have  been  invested  with  a 
quasi-infallibility.  This  has  arisen  in  good  measure 
from  Protestants  not  knowing  the  force  of  theological 
terms.  The  words  to  which  they  refer,  are  the  author- 
itative decision  that '  nothing  in  his  works  have  been 


30 


AUTHORITY  OF  SAINTS  AND 


found  worthy  of  censure,  censurd  dignum,'  but  this  does 
not  lead  to  the  conclusions  that  have  been  drawn  from 
it.  These  words  occur  in  a  legal  document,  and  can- 
not be  interpreted,  except  in  a  legal  sense.  In  the 
first  place  the  sentence  is  negative;  nothing  in  St. 
Alfono's  writings  is  positively  approved  ;  and  secondly, 
it  is  not  said  that  there  are  no  faults  in  what  he  has 
written,  but  nothing  which  comes  under  ecclesiastical 
censure."  Pope  Benedict  XIV.  says  :  "  The  end  or 
scope  of  the  judgment  pronounced  on  the  works  of  a 
saint  when  examined  before  his  canonization,  is,  that 
it  may  appear  that  the  doctrine  of  the  servant  of  God, 
which  he  has  brought  out  in  his  writings,  is  free  from 
any  theological  censure.  It  can  never  be  said  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  servant  of  God  is  approved  by  the  Holy 
See,  but  at  most,  it  can  (only)  be  said  that  it  is  not  dis- 
approved (non  reprobatani).  Hence  a  writer  of  Mechlin 
quoted  by  Dr.  Newman,  observes:  "It  is,  therefore, 
clear  that  the  approbation  of  the  words  of  the  holy 
bishop  teaches  not  the  truth  of  every  proposition,  adds 
nothing  to  them,  nor  even  gives  them  by  consequence 
a  degree  of  intrinsic  probability."  So  much  then  for 
the  approbation  of  the  writings  of  canonized  saints. 
Now  what  about  solemnly  declared  doctors  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church?  I  borrow  my  answer  from  a  well- 
informed  writer  in  a  late  number  of  the  "  London 
Tablet."  "  The  highest  appreciation  of  the  doctrine 
©f  doctors  is  in  a  quotation  made  by  Benedict 
XIV.  from  a  decree  of  Boniface  VIII.,  where  we  read 
that  for  one  to  be  raised  to  such  rank,  it  should  be 
verified  that,  by  his  doctrine  the  darkness  of  errors 
was  dispersed,  light  thrown  upon  obscurities,  doubts 
resolved,  the  hard  knots  of  Scripture  unloosed."     Be- 


DOCTORS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


31 


sides,  as  the  same  writer  remarks,  does  not  St.  Alfonso 
himself  often  impugn  the  opinions  and  controvert  the 
teachings  of  other  illustrious  and  sainted  doctors,  and 
among  others  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  himself,  the  great 
scholastic  doctor  and  angel  of  the  schools.  And  may 
not  we  say  in  regard  to  St.  Liguori  what  the  monk 
Nicholas  is  said  to  have  answered,  when  charged  with 
want  of  reverence  to  St.  Bernard,  who  is  styled  the 
most  lovable  of  the  doctors  of  the  Church:  "We  may 
not  indeed  doubt  of  his  glory,  but  we  may  dispute  his 
word."  Nay,  more,  though  we  are  firm  believers  in 
Papal  infallibility,  and  always  have  been,  even  before 
its  explicit  definition  and  formal  promulgation  by  the 
Vatican  Council,  we  do  not  hold  that  the  canonization 
of  a  servant  of  God,  or  his  elevation  to  the  rank  and 
title  of  doctor  of  the  Universal  Church,  by  the  Holy 
See,  invests  his  writings  with  infallible,  or  quasi-infalli- 
ble, or  Papal  authority,  or  decides  the  truth  of  every 
theological  proposition  which  he  maintains,  though,  as 
Benedict  XIV.  remarks:  "We  should  speak  of  him 
with  reverence  and  attack  his  opinions  only  with  temper 
and  modesty."  More  still,  Catholic  faith  does  not 
make  the  Pope,  nor  does  he  himself  claim  to  be,  infal- 
lible, when,  as  a  private  doctor  or  theologian,  he  dis- 
cusses theological  questions  or  writes  on  disputed  points 
of  doctrine  or  morals. 


32  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 


VIII. 

PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 

r  I  ^HIS  brings  us  to  the  subject  of  papal  infallibility, 
J-  so  frequently  mentioned  and  strangely  misrepre- 
sented in  the  pamphlet  of  an  "  Old  Catholic,"  review- 
ing our  lecture.  I  must  of  necessity  be  brief  on 
this  point,  and  must  confine  myself  to  a  statement  of 
the  Catholic  doctrine  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  is 
based.  This  will  suffice  to  correct  the  wrong  views 
taken  of  it,  and  the  false  impressions  which  unreflect- 
ing readers  might  take  from  the  pamphlet  in  question. 
In  the  last  session  of  the  Vatican  Council,  on  the  17th 
day  of  July,  the  following  definition  of  Catholic  faith 
was  promulgated : 

"Therefore,  faithfully  adhering  to  the  tradition  re- 
ceived from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  faith,  for 
the  glory  of  God  our  Saviour,  the  exaltation  of  the 
Catholic  religion,  and  the  salvation  of  the  Christian 
people,  the  sacred  council  approving,  we  teach  and  de- 
fine, that  it  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed :  that  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra — that  is, 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILTY.  33 

when  in  the  discharge  of  tne  office  of  pastor  and 
teacher  of  all  Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme 
authority  he  defines  a  doctrine  of  faith  or  morals  to  be 
held  by  the  Universal  Church — is,  by  the  divine  as- 
sistance promised  to  him  in  Blessed  Peter,  possessed 
of  that  infallibility  with  which  the  Divine  Redeemer 
willed  that  His  Church  should  be  endowed  for  de- 
fining doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals ;  and  that 
therefore  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  are  irre- 
formable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent  of 
the  Church." 

No  novelty  in  doctrine  then  is  here  introduced,  no 
new  article  of  faith  taught,  but  faithfully  adhering  to 
the  traditions  received  from  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  it  is  declared  to  be  a  dogma  divinely  revealed 
that  when  the  Roman  Pontiff,  in  his  supreme  official 
capacity  of  pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,  speak- 
ing ex  cathedra,  defines  a  doctrine  touching  faith  or 
morals  to  be  held  by  all  Christians,  he  cannot  err  in  so 
defining,  but  through  the  divine  assistance  promised  to 
Blessed  Peter  he  is  endowed  with  the  infallible  magis- 
terium  or  teaching  authority,  with  which  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  was  pleased  to  invest  His  Church.  We  recog- 
nize no  authority  on  earth,  in  Pope  or  council,  to  make 
a  new  article  of  faith,  to  alter,  add  to,  or  take  from  the 
deposit  of  faith  once  committed  to  the  saints  ;  we  be- 
lieve in  no  new  revelation.  The  question  before  the 
council  was  simply,  has  this  doctrine  been  revealed?  is 
it  clearly  contained  in  the  depositnm  fidei  ?  The  bishops 
of  the  Catholic  world  assembled  in  council  under  the 
presidency  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  claimed  no  author- 
ity to  make  a  new  dogma,  no  right  to  impose  a  new 
article  of  faith  on  the  consciences   of   their   people. 


34  PAPAL  IXFALLIBILITY. 

They  were  indeed  judges  and  qualified  witnesses  of  the 
faith  and  traditions  of  the  churches  "  over  which  they 
were  placed  by  the  holy  Ghost  to  rule."  The  revealed 
word  of  God,  the  holy  Gospels,were  reverently  enthroned 
in  the  council  chamber,  and  the  Fathers  asked  them- 
selves, is  this  doctrine  sustained  by  Scriptural  proof?  is 
It  taught  in  the  infallible  word  of  God?  is  it  conform- 
able to  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ?  what  has  been 
the  faith  of  Christian  Churches  ?  what  traditions  have 
been  handed  down  ?  It  was  only  after  the  most  con- 
clusive evidence,  afforded  by  an  elaborate  and  critical 
examination  of  Scriptural  authorities,  and  a  patient, 
thorough,  searching  investigation  of  the  traditions  of 
all  the  Christian  Churches,  that,  it  was  proclaimed  a 
revealed  dogma  of  Christian  faith  ;  that,  the  above  de- 
cree was  formulated,  with  the  sacred  council  approving  ; 
that,  the  explicit  formal  decision  of  the  question  was  defi- 
nitively and  authoritatively  pronounced.  Did  the 
Council  of  Nicea,  in  the  year  325,  under  Pope  St. 
Sylvester,  make  a  new  article  of  faith  when  it  defined 
the  consubstantiality  of  Christ  with  the  Father  ?  Did 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  in  the  year  431,  under  Pope  St. 
Celestine  change  the  Christian  faith  when  it  defined 
that  there  was  but  one  person  in  Christ,  and  that  Mary 
was  truly  the  Mother  of  God  ?  Does  our  Supreme 
Court  alter  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or 
add  an  amendment  to  the  same,  when  it  interprets  of- 
ficially and  authoritatively  that  honored  instrument, 
which  Americans  love  to  call  the  great  palladium  of  our 
liberties,  and  decides  grave  legal  rights  and  hotly  con- 
tested questions  to  be  within  the  purview  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  our  fathers,  or  conformable  to  its  provisions? 
This  is  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Vatican  Council  did,  this  is 


PAPAL  IXPALLIBTL1TY. 


35 


all  that  any  Council  ever  did,  or  can  do.  Constituted  a 
Supreme  Tribunal  of  last  resort,  it  decides  not  only 
definitively  but  with  infallible  authority  what  is  of  faith, 
what  is  conformable  to  the  revealed  word  of  God.  This 
is  all  the  Church  has  ever  claimed,  but  this  prerogative 
she  has  ever  claimed  and  exercised,  and  it  is  absolutely- 
necessary  to  her  in  the  fulfilment  of  her  divine  com 
mission  to  teach  all  nations,  all  truth,  down  to  the  end 
of  time,  absolutely  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
oneness  of  faith,  absolutely  necessary  that  we  may  know 
what  is  the  faith,  which  we  are  bound  to  believe  if  we 
would  be  saved.  And  hence  our  Blessed  Lord,  in  estab- 
lishing His  Church,  and  requiring  us  to  receive  her 
teaching:  "  He  that  will  not  hear  the  Church  let  him 
be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and  publican,"  (Matt,  xviii., 
17),  declaring,  that  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
condemned,"  (Mark  xvi.,  16),  must  of  necessity  have 
made  her  unerring,  absolutely  infallible  in  her  teaching, 
as  he  did  promising  "  Himself  to  be  with  her  for- 
ever," (Matt,  xxviii.,  20),  and  to  send  the  Spirit  of 
Truth  to  abide  with  her  forever,  to  teach  her  all  truth. 
Since  the  coming  of  our  Saviour  there  has  been  no  new 
revelation.  The  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  is  un- 
changeable, and  hence  with  St.  Paul  we  say,  if  any  one, 
even  an  angel  of  Heaven,  preach  to  you  any  other 
gospel  saye  that  which  you  have  received,  let  him  be 
anathema.     (Gal.  i.,  9.) 

The  Church  is  then  simply  the  witness  among  men 
of  the  original  revelation.  Her  office  is  to  declare  what 
was  contained  in  that  original  deposit,  and  in  declaring 
this  she  is  divinely  assisted,  and  thus  it  is,  by  the  divine 
assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  the  integrity  and  purity 
of  faith,  are  divinely  and  infallibly  preserved,  and  as 


36  PAPA  L  INFALLIBILITY. 

may  be  seen  by  the  decree  itself,  and  by  what  may  be 
called  the  preamble  to  the  decree,  the  whole  text  of  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the  first  constitution  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  she  goes  back  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
and  tradition,  councils  and  doctors  of  the  Church,  and 
expressly  declares  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  was  not  promised 
to  the  successors  of  Peter,  that  by  His  revelation  they 
might  make  known  new  doctrine,  but  that  by  His  as- 
sistance, they  might  inviolably  keep  and  faithfully  ex- 
pound the  revelation  or  deposit  of  faith  delivered 
through  the  Apostles."  Indeed  I  feel  impelled  to 
transfer  to  these  pages  the  full  text  of  that  fourth  chap- 
ter, "  On  the  infallible  magisterium,  or  teaching  author- 
ity of  the  Roman  Pontiff,"  and  although  somewhat 
lengthy  it  will  well  repay  perusal,  as  it  shows  the  mind 
of  the  council,  the  sources  whence  it  drew  the  doctrine 
defined,  and  must  forever  set  at  rest  the  charge  of 
novelty  or  innovation. 

"  Moreover,  that  the  supreme  power  of  teaching  is 
also  included  in  the  Apostolic  primacy  which  the  Ro- 
man Pontiff,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  Prince  of 
the  Apostles,  possesses  over  the  whole  Church,  this 
Holy  See  has  always  held,  the  perpetual  practice  of  the 
Church  confirms,  and  oecumenical  councils  also  have 
declared,  especially  those  in  which  the  East  with  the 
West  met  in  the  union  of  faith  and  charity.  For  the 
fathers  of  the  fourth  council  of  Constantinople,  follow- 
ing in  the  footsteps  of  their  predecessors,  gave  forth 
this  solemn  profession  :  The  first  condition  of  salvation 
is  to  keep  the  rule  of  the  true  faith.  And  because  the 
sentence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  cannot  be  passed 
by,  who  said :  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will   build   my   Church  (Matt.  xvi.  18),  these   things 


PAPAL  IXFALL1B1LITY. 


37 


which  have  been  said  are  approved  by  events,  because 
in  the  Apostolic  See  the  Catholic  religion  has  always 
been  kept  undefined,  and  her  holy  doctrine  proclaimed. 
Desiring,  therefore,  not  to  be  in  the  least  degree 
separated  from  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  that  See,  we 
hope  that  we  may  deserve  to  be  in  the  one  commun- 
ion which  the  Apostolic  See  preaches,  in  which  is  the 
entire  and  true  solidity  of  the  Christian  religion. 
(Formula  of  St.  Hermisdas,  subscribed  by  the  fathers 
of  the  Eighth  General  Council  [fourth  Constantino- 
ple], A.  D.  869.)  And,  with  the  approval  of  the  second 
council  of  Lyons,  the  Greeks  professed  that  the  Holy 
Roman  Church  enjoys  supreme  and  full  primacy  and 
pre-eminence  over  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  which  it 
truly  and  humbly  acknowledges  that  it  has  received  with 
the  plenitude  of  power  from  our  Lord  Himself  in  the 
person  of  the  Blessed  Peter,  Prince  or  head  of  the 
Apostles,  whose  successor  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  ;  and 
as  the  Apostolic  See  is  bound  before  all  others  to  de- 
fend the  truth  of  faith,  so,  also,  if  any  questions  regard- 
ing faith  shall  arise,  they  must  be  defined  by  its  judg- 
ment. (Acts  of  Fourteenth  General  Council  [second 
of  Lyons],  A.  D.  1274.)  Finally  the  Council  of  Florence 
defined  :  (Acts  of  Seventeenth  General  Council  of  Flor- 
ence, A.  D.  1438)  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  the  true 
vicar  of  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the  whole  Church, 
and  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,  and  that 
to  him,  in  Blessed  Peter,  was  delivered  by  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  the  full  power  of  feeding,  ruling,  and  gov- 
erning the  whole  Church.     John  xxi.  15-17. 

To  satisfy  this  pastoral  duty  our  predecessors  ever 
made  unwearied  efforts  that  the  salutary  doctrine  of 
Christ  might  be  propagated  among  all  the  nations  of 


38  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 

the  earth,  and  with  equal  care  watched  that  it  might 
be  preserved  genuine  and  pure  where  it  had  been 
received.  Therefore  the  bishops  of  the  whole  world, 
now  singly,  now  assembled  in  synod,  following  the 
long-established  custom  of  churches  (Letter  of  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  to  Pope  St.  Celestine  I.,  A.  D.  422, 
volvi.,  pt.  II.,  p.  36,  Paris  Edit,  of  1638),  and  the  form 
of  the  ancient  rule  (Rescript  of  St.  Innocent  I.  to 
Council  of  Milevis.  A.  D.  402)  sent  word  to  his  Apos- 
tolic See  of  those  dangers  especially  which  sprang  up 
in  matters  of  faith,  that  there  the  losses  of  faith  might 
be  most  effectually  repaired  where  the  faith  cannot  fail. 
(Letter  of  St.  Bernard  to  Pope  Innocent  II.,  A.  D. 
1130,  Epist.  191,  vol.  iii.,  p.  433,  Paris  Edit,  of  1742.) 
And  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  according  to  the  exigencies 
of  time  and  circumstance,  sometimes  assembling 
oecumenical  councils,  or  asking  for  the  mind  of  the 
Church  scattered  throughout  the  world,  sometimes 
by  particular  synods,  sometimes  using  other  helps 
which  Divine  Providence  supplied,  defined  as  to  be 
held  those  things  which  with  the  help  of  God  they 
had  recognized  as  conformable  with  the  sacred  Scrip, 
ture  and  Apostolic  tradition.  For  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  not  promised  to  the  successors  of  Peter  that  by 
His  revelation  they  might  make  known  new  doct- 
rine, but  that  by  His  assistance  they  might  inviol- 
ably keep  and  faithfully  expound  the  revelation  or 
deposit  of  faith  delivered  through  the  Apostles.  And 
indeed  all  the  venerable  fathers  have  embraced,  and 
the  holy  orthodox  doctors  have  venerated  and  followed 
their  Apostolic  doctrine ;  knowing  most  fully  that 
this  See  of  holy  Peter  remains  ever  free  from  all 
1   blemish  of  error,  according  to  the  Divine  promise  of 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY.  39 

A 

the  Lord  our  Saviour  made  to  the  Prince  of  His  dis- 
ciples: I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not,, 
and  when  thou  art  converted  confirm  thy  brethern. 
(Luke  xxii.,  32.  '  See  also  acts  of  Sixth  General 
Council,  A.  D.  680.) 

This  gift,  then,  of  truth  and  never-failing  faith  was 
conferred  by  heaven  upon  Peter  and  his  successors  irj 
this  chair,  that  they  might  perform  their  high  office- 
for  the  salvation  of  all ;  that  the  whole  flock  of  Christ 
kept  away  by  them  from  the  poisonous  food  of  error,, 
might  be  nourished  with  the  pasture  of  heavenly  doc- 
trine; that  the  occasion  of  schism  being  removed,  the 
whole  Church  might  be  kept  one,  and,  resting  on  its 
foundation,  might  stand  firm  against  the  gates  of  hell- 
But  since,  in  this  very  age,  in  which  the  salutary 
efficacy  of  the  Apostolic  office  is  most  of  all  required, 
not  a  few  are  found  who  take  away  from  its  authority, 
we  judge  it  altogether  necessary  solemnly  to  assert  the 
prerogative  which  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God 
vouchsafed  to  join  with  the  supreme  pastoral  office. 

"Therefore,  continues  the  council  adhering  to  the 
tradition  received  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
faith,"  etc.,  as  above.  To  demonstrate  that  this  same 
tradition  was  held  in  the  Church  of  England  before  the 
so-called  Reformation,  I  will  cite  two  distinguished  arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury.  St.  Thomas,  in  a  letter  to  the 
bishop  of  Hereford  :  "Who  doubts  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  the  head  of  all  the  churches,  and  the  fountain 
of  Catholic  truth  ?  Who  is  ignorant  that  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  were  entrusted  to  Peter?  Does 
not  the  structure  of  the  whole  Church  rise  from  the 
faith  and  doctrine  of  Peter?"  And  the  illustrious  St- 
Anselm,  who  died  in  1107,  writes  to  a  Pope  of  his  day  1 


4Q  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 

"For  as  much  as  the  Providence  of  God  has  chosen 
your  Holiness  to  commit  to  your  custody  the  (guid- 
ance of  the)  life  and  faith  of  Christians,  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  to  no  other  can  reference  be 
more  rightly  made,  if  so  be,  anything  contrary  to 
the  Catholic  faith  arise  in  the  Church,  in  order  that  it 
may  be  corrected  by  your  authority."  In  further 
proof,  if  indeed  that  be  needed,  that  the  dogma  is  no 
novelty,  I  will  take  a  short  extract  from  a  pastoral 
which  seventeen  of  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of 
Germany  addressed  to  their  clergy  and  people  from 
Fulda  after  the  Vatican  Council  in  1870:  "Wherefore, 
we  hereby  declare  that  the  present  Vatican  Council  is 
a  legitimate  General  Council,  and  moreover  that  this 
council,  as  little  as  any  other  General  Council,  has  pro- 
pounded or  formed  a  new  doctrine  at  variance  with  the 
ancient  teaching ;  but  that  it  has  simply  developed  and 
thrown  light  upon  the  old  and  faithfully  preserved  truth, 
contained  in  the  deposit  of  faith,  and  in  opposition  to 
the  errors  of  the  day  has  proposed  it  expressly  to  the 
belief  of  all  the  faithful ;  and  lastly,  that  these  decrees 
have  received  a  binding  power  on  all  the  faithful  by 
the  fact  of  their  final  publication  by  the  Supreme 
Head  of  the  Church,  in  solemn  form  at  the  public 
session."  Thus,  what  was  always  contained  in  the 
deposit  of  faith,  by  the  formal  explicit  definition  of 
the  council,  and  solemn  promulgation  by  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff,  became  of  binding  force  on  all  the  faithful ; 
what  was  before  matter  of  implicit  faith  became 
thenceforth  of  explicit  faith.  What  then  becomes  of 
the  objection  of  "Keenans  Catechism"  and  Bossuet,  of 
the  want  of  unanimity  in  the  council,  etc. 

Before  the  final  ruling  of  the  Supreme  Tribunal  and 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY.  41 

the  explicit  decision  of  the  question  at  issue,  Catholics 
could  take  sides,  and  as  the  German  prelates  say :  "As 
long  as  the  discussions  lasted,  the  bishops,  as  their  con- 
sciences demanded,  and  as  became  their  office,  expressed 
their  views  plainly  and  openly,  and  with  all  necessary 
freedom ;  and  as  was  only  to  be  expected  in  an  assem- 
bly of  nearly  800  Fathers,  many  differences  of  opinion 
were  manifested." 

That  religious  questions  would  arise,  and  differences 
of  opinion,  eighteen  hundred  years  after  Christ,  as  well 
as  in  the  first  age  of  the  Christian  Church,  our  Lord 
well  knew,  and  he  provided  for  the  solution  of  these 
questions  and  the  settlement  of  those  differences,  and 
thereby  for  the  integrity  and  purity  of  Christian  faith 
by  establishing  an  ever-present,  living,  speaking  author- 
ity in  His  Church,  who  would  be  His  own  mouthpiece, 
and  make  His  people,  the  world  over,  and  down  through 
the  ages,  unius  labii,  and  thus  save  them  from  the  Babel- 
like confusion  into  which  those  sects  necessarily  fall 
who  reject  the  authority  of  an  infallible  teacher. 

The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  but  without  the  living 
voice  of  an  authorized  teacher  it  is  wrested  to  the 
destruction  of  faith  and  to  the  endless  divisions  of 
Christianity.  What  anarchy  and  endless  disputes,  and 
bitter,  bloody  feuds,  to  say  nothing  of  wild  revolu- 
tionary schemes,  would  have  ensued  before  the  first 
centennial  of  our  independence,  had  the  wise  fathers 
and  founders  of  the  Republic  left  each  man  to  judge 
for  himself  of  the  true  meaning,  scope  and  intent  of  the 
constitution,  without  a  tribunal,  whose  decisions  were 
to  be  final  and  possessed  of  a  certain  legal  infallibility. 
And  can  we  believe  that  our  Lord,  in  giving  a  consti- 
tution to  His  Church,  which  was  to  spread  over  the 


42 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 


habitable  globe,  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  from  pole 
to  pole,  and  to  continue  to  the  consummation  of  ages, 
would  have  left  us  without  some  such  resource,  the 
hopeless  victims  of  interminable  divisions,  doubt,  un- 
certainty and  error  whilst,  too,  obliging  us  under  pen- 
alty of  exclusion  from  the  kingdom,  to  believe  His  doc- 
trine, to  be  His  disciples,  and  to  observe  all  those 
things  that  he  had  commanded?  But  thanks  to  His  in- 
finite love  and  mercy,  He  has  not  thus  abandoned  us. 
He  has  established  a  Church  with  authority  to  teach, 
and  it  is  His  own  mystical  body,  which  cannot  exist 
without  a  head,  and  which,  animated  by  the  divine 
Spirit,  becomes  the  organ  of  infallible  truth  and  divine 
life  to  man  United  with  that  head  must  the  members 
be.  would  they  share  that  divine  life ;  around  that  head 
were  the  bishops  of  the  Church  of  God  gathered  in 
love  and  reverence,  and  bearing  witness  to  the  unfailing 
faith  of  ages ;  through  the  voice  of  Pius  they  proclaimed 
that  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs  were  still  the  successors  of 
blessed  Peter,  and  by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to 
that  privileged  Apostle,  when  defining  faith  or  morals, 
ex  cathedra,  as  doctor  of  all  Christians,  are  possessed  of 
that  infallibility  with  which  our  Divine  Redeemer 
wished  his  Church  to  be  endowed. 

Such,  then,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility, 
to  which  at  once  all  bow  submission,  and  cry  out  with 
the  Apostles  of  our  Lord  :  "  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go 
but  to  thee?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life." 
(John  vi.,  69.)  How  different  from  the  so-called  Church 
of  freedom,  that  dares  not  define  its  own  belief,  because 
conscious  of  no  divine  authority  to  teach,  for  how  can 
they  teach  if  they  be  not  sent  ?  But  how  unjust  and 
ungrounded  the  charge  of   crouching  servility,  made 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILTY.  ^ 

so  recklessly  against  Prelates,  ready  to  sacrifice  lib- 
erty and  life  rather  than  compromise  principles,  who 
have  shown  themselves  not  only  men  of  pure  elevated 
characters,  but  intrepid  heroes  and  martyrs  in  defence 
of  religion,  and  the  rights  of  conscience.  If  our  own 
testimony  on  this  subject  be  not  taken,  whose  privilege 
it  was  to  be  present  in  the  venerable  council,  and  to 
have  had  an  inside  view  of  all  its  proceedings — and  I 
will  during  my  whole  life  cherish  it  as  the  greatest  honor 
of  my  life,  to  have  been  thus  brought  into  friendly,  social, 
fraternal  relations  with  many  of  the  most  estimable, 
highly  cultured,  and  saintly  men — if  the  plain  language 
of  the  learned  and  independent  German  Prelates  be 
not  enough  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  that  council 
against  the  aspersions  of  an  anonymous  writer  who, 
ashamed,  as  well  he  might  be,  to  make  himself  known, 
concealed  his  identity  under  the  title  of  "  Janus," 
I  beg  to  refer  to  "Anti-Janus,"  by  Dr.,  now  Car- 
dinal Hergenrother.  or  to  the  "True  Story  of  the  Vat- 
ican Council,"  by  Cardinal  Manning.  I  have  dwelt  so 
long  on  this  point,  because  of  the  misunderstanding  and 
misconception,  and  either  ignorant  or  wilful  misrepre- 
sentation of  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility,  and  the 
so-called  innovation  in  doctrirfe  by  the  Vatican  Council. 
This  may  show  also  how  easily  some  people  can  say :  '*/ 
have  shown  that  not  even  the  Roman  Church  held  this 
doctrine  of  infallibility  four  years  ago  ;"  and:  "/  liave 
shown  that  Pius  IX.,  on  the  18th  of  July,  1870,  taught 
a  new  doctrine,"  when  they  have  shown  no  such  thing, 
nor  can  they  show  anything  more  than  that  four  years 
ago,  from  the  time  the  person  wrote,  that  is,  on  the  18th 
of  July,  1870,  there  was  not  an  explicit  positive  de- 
cision, or  an  official  ruling  of  the  Supreme  Tribunal  of 


44 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 


God's  Church,  that  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility 
was  actually  contained  in  the  deposit  faith,  revealed  by 
Christ,  and  committed  to  the  keeping  of  the  Church. 

In  civil  affairs  doubts  arise  as  to  the  legality  of  cer- 
tain acts,  or  to  the  constitutionality  of  certain  legisla- 
tive enactments,  and  men  take  sides  and  are  free  to 
hold  different  opinions,  because  as  yet  the  case  has 
not  been  authoritatively  and  definitively  decided, 
but  when  the  case  has  been  submitted  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  the  decision  has  been  handed  down,  there 
is  no  longer  question.  That  decision  is  appealed  to  as  a 
final  settlement  of  the  question,  though  no  one  in  his 
senses  would  say  that  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
country  have  been  changed,  or  a  new  article  added  to 
the  constitution  by  such  a  decision.  Now,  there  is 
just  one  more  point  in  this  connection  to  which  I  wish 
to  call  attention.  I  asserted  in  my  lecture  that  in  the 
ancient  Church,  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome  was 
a  conclusive  proof  and  crucial  test,  not  only  of  legitim- 
acy of  succession,  but  also  of  orthodoxy  of  faith,  to  which 
our  "  Old  Catholic"  reviewer  replies;  "  This  I  frankly 
allow  :  nay,  this  I  delight  to  show,  while  the  bishops  of 
Rome  were  orthodox,  they  were  pillars  of  orthodoxy." 
But,  he  continues:  "  When  a  Bishop  of* Rome  became 
a  heretic,  it  was  no  advantage  to  any  one  to  be  in 
communion  with  him."  He  then  goes  on  to  state 
that  we  are  bound  to  exclaim  in  pious  horror  that 
such  a  thing  is  impossible,  viz.,  that  a  Pope  could  be  a 
heretic,  and  then  attempts  to  prove  by  a  quotation 
from  "  Bossuet,  the  greatest  of  all  modern  bishops," 
that  such  is  the  fact.  Needless  to  say  that  the  words 
of  Bossuet  prove  nothing  of  the  sort,  and  although  we 
believe  that   no    Bishop   of    Rome    ever    became  a 


PAPAL  INFALLIBIL1 T  Y.  45 

heretic,  we  are  not  bound  to  believe  that  such  a  thing 
cannot  be.  We  are  bound  to  believe  that  no  Bishop  of 
Rome  ever  taught,  or  could  teach,  ex  cathedra,  in  his 
official  capacity  of  teacher  of  the  Universal  Church  any- 
thing heretical,  false,  or  immoral.  Here  is  a  distinction 
which  some  people  do  not  see,  or  care  to  make,  and  no 
wonder  that  infallibility  in  this  sense,  personal  infalli- 
bility, or  that  Catholics  were  bound  to  believe  the 
Pope  in  himself  to  be  infallible,  was  declared  to  be  a 
Protestant  invention.  It  is  then  a  baseless  fabrication, 
an  "  Old  Catholic,"  invention,  that  we  have  made  a 
God  of  the  Pope,  or  believe  him  to  be  impeccable,  and 
hence  how  vain  and  hopeless  the  task  of  combating 
Papal  infallibility  by  charges  of  corruption,  vice  and 
wickedness  made  against  certain  Popes. 

The  terms  of  the  Vatican  definition  are  too  plain  to 
be  misconstrued  in  this  way,  and  precisely  to  obviate 
this  difficulty,  to  anticipate  this  objection,  and  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  this  wrong  interpretation,  the 
title  of  the  fourth  chapter,  which  originally  read:  "On 
the  Infallibility  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,"  was  changed 
to  that  of,  "  The  infallible  teaching  authority  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff."  And  is  it  not  a  very  significant 
fact — a  fact  which  may  be  said  even  to  constitute  a 
prima  facie  evidence  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pope's  infallibility — that,  although  in  every  age  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  disputes  and  controver- 
sies concerning  points  of  belief,  doctrinal  questions 
most  grave,  complicated  and  vital  to  the  unity  and 
integrity  of  the  faith  of  Christ  were  referred  to  the 
Holy  See  from  every  quarter  of  the  Christian  world, 
were  answered  and  decided  by  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs, 
not  a  single  one  of  the  long,  unbroken  line  of  Supreme 


jfi  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 

Pastors,  from  Peter  down  to  Leo  XIII.,  now  gloriously 
reigning,  can  be  convicted  of  teaching  ex  cathedra — in 
Ms  official  capacity — erroneous  doctrine  or  erring  in 
his  Pontifical  decision  of  what  was  to  be  held  as  of 
faith  by  the  Universal  Church.  When  again  we  reflect 
that  in  the  mass  of  official  acts  of  Popes,  Pontifical 
constitutions,  bulls,  decrees  and  encyclicals  accumul- 
ating during  nineteen  centuries,  ransacked,  sifted, 
keenly  scrutinized,  carefully  and  searchingly  examined 
in  the  discussion  of  a  question  now  happily  closed, 
nothing  positive  could  be  discovered  in  conflict  with 
the  infallible  prerogative  of  the  chair  of  Peter,  is  not 
the  conviction  forced  upon  us  that  the  "finger  of  God 
is  here,"  that  this  astounding  fact  can  be  reasonably 
and  satisfactorily  accounted  for  only  by  the  special 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  promised  to  His  Church 
by  Christ  our  Lord.  With  all  this  before  us,  what 
difficulty  can  we  find  in  believing  and  professing  that 
the  same  divine  help,  the  same  supernatural  guidance, 
the  same  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  ever  be 
vouchsafed  to  the  visible  Head  of  the  Church  in  the 
discharge  of  the  sacred  and  sublime  duties  of  his 
Apostolical  office  of  vicar  of  Christ  and  teacher  of  the 
Universal  Church,  especially  in  view  of  the  promises 
made  to  Peter  by  our  Lord,  and  of  the  absolute  need 
that  the  truth  of  faith  should  be  thus  divinely  guarded 
through  the  divinely  appointed  Supreme  Pastor  and 
shepherd  of  the  whole  flock  of  Christ :  "  Feed  my 
lambs,  feed  my  sheep."     (John  xxi.,  16,  17.) 


POPES  LIBERIUS  AND  HONORIUS. 


47 


IX. 

POPES   LIBERIUS  AND   HONORIUS. 

NOW,  we  said  above,  that  since  the  days  of  Peter, 
for  whom  our  Lord  prayed  that  his  faith  might 
not  fail :  "  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail 
not,"  (Luke  xxii.,  32)  nearly  nineteen  hundred  years 
ago,  nothing  has  been  discovered  in  the  official  acts 
of  his  successors  in  the  See  of  Rome  in  conflict  with 
the  decree  of  the  Vatican  Council  concerning  the  in- 
fallible teaching  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 
In  fact,  of  only  two  in  that  long  line  of  Pontiffs  has 
the  orthodoxy  been  questioned,  and  even  these  two, 
Liberius,  whose  Pontificate  extended  from  the  year  352 
to  366,  and  Honorius,  who  reigned  from  625  to  638,  rigid 
historical  research,  has  fully  vindicated  from  the  charge 
of  teaching  error.  As  these  charges  are  again  repeated 
in  the  pamphlet  before  me,  and  with  so  much  confi- 
dence, I  must  beg  my  readers'  pardon  for  detaining  them 
by  a  brief  refutation.  A  cursory  review  of  these  points 
of  Church  history  may  not  prove  uninteresting  or  un- 
instructive.  Liberius  was  the  immediate  successor  o( 
Julius,  who  asserted  the  jurisdiction  of  his  See  over 
the  whole  Church,  East  and  West,  and  severely  rebuked 
the  Eastern  heretical  bishops  for  daring  to  take  decisive 
action  in  the  case  of  Athanasius  without  his  authority, 
and  the  immediate  predecessor  of  Damasus,  of  whom 


48  POPES  LIBERIUS  AND  HONORIUS 

St.  Jerome  says :  "  Following  no  leader  but  Christ,  I 
am  associated  in  communion  with  thy  Holiness,  that 
is,  with  the  chair  of  Peter ;  upon  this  rock  I  know  that 
the  Church  has  been  built."  Honorius  was  appealed 
to  in  the  question  of  jurisdiction  and  precedence  be- 
tween the  sees  of  Canterbury  and  York,  and  although 
some  people  will  say  that  England  was  never  subject 
to  Rome,  or  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  this  same  Honorius  gave  the  pallium 
to  Honorius  and  Paulinus,  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  granting  them  the  faculty,  that  whichever 
of  them  should  survive  might  ordain  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  deceased.  But  now  to  the  charges: 
"Liberius  turned  Arian,"  "  Athanasius  is  condemned 
by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  for  adhering  to  orthodoxy," 
"The  holy  and  orthodox  bishop  of  Poictiers  says: 
'  Anathema  to  thee,  Liberius,  to  thee,  and  to  those  who 
are  with  thee.  I  repeat — anathema !  Again,  a  third 
time,  anathema  to  thee,  thou  prevaricator,  Liberius.' " 
Now,  it  is  certain  Liberius  never  became  an  Arian,  and 
never  condemned  St.  Athanasius.  The  most  that  is 
said  of  him  by  his  enemies  is,  that  worn  out  by  the 
sufferings  of  exile  into  which  he  had  been  sent  by  the 
Arian  emperor,  Constantius,  on  account  of  his  uncon- 
querable firmness  in  sustaining  the  orthodox  Catholic 
faith,  he  at  length  weakened  and  signed  one  of  the 
specious  and  deceptive  professions  of  faith,  cunningly 
devised  by  the  wily  Arian  tricksters,  and  thus  pur- 
chased his  release  from  banishment  and  return  to 
Rome.  It  is  doubtful  that  St.  Hilarius  ever  wrote 
the  words  here  ascribed  to  him  ;  many  regard  them,  and 
with  good  reason, as  an  interpolation;  again,  though 
there  were  three  different  formulas  or  professions  of  faith 


POPES  LIBERIUS  AND  HONOR  1  US.  49 

framed  in  three  different  Arian  conferences  or  gather- 
ings at  Sirmium,  one  of  which  Liberius  is  said  to  have 
subscribed,  yet  no  one  can  determine  which  of  them  ; 
and  lastly,  if  he  did  sign  the  most  objectionable  of 
them,  it  militates  not  in  the  least  against  the  doctrine 
of  Papal  infallibility,  in  as  much  as  when  under  com- 
pulsion and  in  exile,  in  a  moment  of  weakness  he  sub- 
scribed a  profession  of  faith  which,  though  capable  of 
an  orthodox  interpretation,  might  be  construed  as 
favoring  Arianism  and  condemning  St.  Athanasius,  the 
great  champion  of  orthodoxy,  he  was  not  teaching  the 
Church,  was  not,  ex  cathedra,  deciding  what  should  be 
held  by  the  Universal  Church.  But  with  the  great 
ma*ss  of  authorities,  we  do  not  believe  that  he  ever 
subscribed  any  such  doubtful  formula,  and  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  he  ever  did.  We  do  not  believe  that 
St.  Hilarius  ever  pronounced  the  anathemas  above 
mentioned,  and  even  if  he  did,  it  is  no  ways  conclusive 
against  the  orthodoxy  of  Liberius,  for  we  can  easily 
suppose  him  deceived  by  the  lies  of  the  Arians  seek- 
ing to  support  their  errors  by  the  authority  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  or  giving  vent  to  overwrought  feel- 
ings of  indignation  and  holy  zeal  at  what  he  conceived 
to  be  siding  with  the  enemies  of  the  faith. 

In  concluding  this  question  of  Liberius,  I  can  not  do 
better  than  quote  from  a  great  and  learned  historian, 
who  after  noting  the  different  authorities  making  these 
charges  against  the  Pontiff,  and  among  them  the  frag- 
ments of  Hilarius,  says:  "  But  considering  the  silence 
of  Socrates,  Theodoret,  Cassiodorus  and  Sulpicius 
Severus,  there  is  a  strong  suspicion  that  this  passage 
was  interpolated  by  the  Arians,  whose  restless  spirit 
stopped  at    nothing  that    might    further  their   cause. 


50  POPES  LIBER1US  AND  HON  OR  I  US. 

The  passage  has,  moreover,  no  connection  in  the  con- 
text either  with  what  precedes  or  follows.  This  we  find 
in  a  note  on  page  542,  Alzog's  "Church  History,"  vol. 
i.  (Pabisch  and  Byrne),  and  in  the  text  the  same  author 
says:  "Constantius  yielding  to  the  prayers  of  the 
most  estimable  ladies  of  Rome,  granted  permission 
to  Pope  Liberius  to  return  to  his  See;  but  it  is 
thought  that  the  menacing  conduct  of  the  Roman 
people,  who  openly  protested  against  the  imperial 
decree  authorizing  a  rival  bishop,  and  cried  out  in  the 
circus,  that  as  there  was  but  one  God  and  one  Christ, 
there  should  be  but  one  bishop,  contributed  more 
than  anything  else  to  extort  from  the  emperor  this 
act  of  clemency."  What  becomes  now  of  the  ana- 
thema to  Liberius?  How  unlikely  that  he  ever 
turned  Arian,  or  condemned  St.  AtJianasins  !  But  how 
evident,  and  demonstrably  certain,  that  he  never  in 
any  official  document,  or  by  zxiy  ex  cathedra  pronounce- 
ment, taught  error,  or  promulgated  anything  unor- 
thodox, which  would  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  valid 
objection  to  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility.  What 
additional  strength  does  all  this  acquire  when  we  find 
St.  Jerome,  who  was  not  wont  to  fawn  on  or  flatter 
either  bishops  or  Popes,  in  the  very  next  Pontificate, 
when  he  certainly  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  any- 
thing that  occurred  under  the  previous  Pope,  declaring 
communion  with  the  See  of  Rome  the  test  of  ortho- 
doxy:  "Whoever  is  not  in  communion  with  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  outside  the  Church,  and  therefore 
was  one  of  the  twelve  set  over  all  the  others  as  the  re- 
cognized Head,  that  all  occasion  of  schism  might  be 
removed  ;"  and  Pope  Hormisdas,  some  time  afterwards, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century,  declared  :    "The 


POPES  LIBERIUS  AND  HONORIUS.  5  1 

faith  of  the  Apostolic  See  has  always  been  inviolate ; 
it  has  preserved  the  Christian  religion  in  its  integrity 
and  purity."  Enough,  then,  about  Liberius,  whom  we 
think  we  have  fully  vindicated  from  the  charges  brought 
against  him.     Can  we  do  as  much  for  Honorius? 


52  H0N0K1US  VINDICATED. 


X. 

HONORIUS  VINDICATED. 

WE  think  we  can,  at  least  as  far  as  the  charge  of  offi- 
cially teaching  heresy  goes,  for  all  we  pretend  or 
care  to  do,  is  to  show  that  the  prerogative  of  Papal  in- 
fallibility as  defined  in  the  Vatican  Council  has  been 
in  no  wise  impaired  or  obscured  by  the  ex  cathedra 
teaching  of  these  two  much  maligned  Pontiffs.  Here, 
then,  are  the  charges  against  him  quoted  from  Bos- 
suet's  "  Defence  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Gallican 
Clergy  :"  "  Honorius  being  duly  interrogated  concern- 
ing the  faith  by  three  Patriarchs,  gave  most  wicked 
answers.  He  was  condemned  by  the  Sixth  General 
Council  under  anathema.  Previous  to  this  anathema^ 
he  was  sustained  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  his  successors  ; 
but  since  the  supreme  judgment  of  the  council,  the  Pon- 
tiffs have  condemned  him  under  the  same  anathema." 
We  are  then  asked  by  our"  Old  Catholic"  friend,  "where 
infallibility  was  in  those  days,  when  one  Bishop  of 
Rome  taught  heresy  from  his  throne,  and  of  his  suc- 
cessors some  upheld  him  and  others  anathematized 
him  as  a  heretic?"  But  as  Bossuet,  "the  greatest  of 
all  modern  bishops,  who  have  lived  and  died  in  com- 
munion with  the  Pope,  and  who  had  no  mind  to  be  a 
mere  worshipper  of  Popes,"  is  cited  against  us,  it  is 
only  fair  to  that  illustrious  bishop  to  tell  our  readers 


HONOKIUS  VINDICATED.  53 

that  in  the  opinion  of  such  men  as  de  Maistre,  the 
"Defence  of  the  Gallican  Declaration"  should  not  be 
taken  as  the  expression  of  the  true  and  permanent 
sentiments  of  Bossuet ;  that  it  was  a  work  wrung  from 
one  who,  though  a  bishop,  and,  if  you  please,  the 
"  greatest  of  modern  bishops,"  for  we  wish  not  to  dim 
his  glory  or  extenuate  his  fame,  was  forced  to  act  the 
courtier  to  the  royal  despot  who  not  only  claimed  to  be 
the  incarnation  of  all  political  or  state  power,  "  Uttat 
cest  mot,"  but  would  have  all  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual 
authority  subject  to  his  beck.  It  was  a  posthumous 
work,  which  he  never  wished  to  publish,  for  although 
he  lived  twenty-two  years  after  the  famous  declaration 
of  1682,  he  never  would  publish  its  "  Defence,"  and  it 
is  an  insult  to  the  memory  of  the  immortal  prelate  to 
have  published  it  under  a  title  of  which  he  seemed  to 
be  ashamed.  The  work  itself,  undertaken  in  obedience 
to  a  royal  master,  he  altered  and  revised,  and  changed 
so  often  and  so  much  that  his  historian  declares  that 
"  no  one  can  doubt,  that  it  was  his  design  to  change  his 
whole  work,  as  he  had  actually  changed  the  first  three 
chapters."  The  work  which  we  have  under  the  title 
of  the  "  Defence  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Gallican 
Clergy,"  does  not  then  express  Bossuet's  real  mind,  and 
is  deprived  of  all  authority,  as  his  purpose  was  to 
change  it  entirely,  and  his  manuscripts  show  that  he  had 
nearly  completed  his  design  when  death  overtook  him. 
With  Count  de  Maistre  we  may  say  of  Bossuet,  that : 
"  In  the  same  man  there  seemed  to  be  two  different 
characters,  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  and  the  French 
courtier:  the  bishop,  who  speaking  the  language  of 
the  Patriarchs,  the  Prophets,  the  Apostles  and  the 
Fathers   belonged  from  the  very  bottom  of  his  soul 


54  BONORIUS  VINDICATED. 

to  the  Roman  Church  ;  the  courtier,  who  to  please  his 
master,  extends  one  hand  to  the  centuriators  of 
Magdeburg,  and  the  other  to  Voltaire,  the  better  to 
falsify  history,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Popes  and  the 
profit  of  kings." 

But  how  grandly  and  how  eloquently  does  this 
"  greatest  of  modern  bishops,  who  is  no  worshipper 
of  the  Popes,"  when  writing  in  his  true  character  of  a 
Catholic  bishop,  untrammelled  by  court  influences  or 
royal  favors,  speak  of  the  See  of  Peter,  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  Roman  Church,  and  the  authority  con- 
ferred on,  and  the  obedience  due  to  the  successors  of 
him  to  whom  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  were 
entrusted.  We  cannot  forbear  a  short  extract  from 
the  "  Discourse  on  Universal  History,"  revealing  the 
lofty  genius  and  true  Catholic  mind  of  the  illustrious 
bishop  of  Meaux  :  "  What  consolation  for  the  children 
of  God,  what  conviction  of  truth !  when  they  see  that 
from  Innocent  XI.,  who  now  (i 68 1)  fills  so  worthily  the 
first  See  of  the  Church,  we  go  back  without  break  even 
to  Peter,  established  by  Jesus  Christ  Prince  of  the 
Apostles:  and  there  taking  up  the  Pontiffs  who  served 
under  the  law,  we  go  back  even  to  Aaron  and  to 
Moses;  and  thence  to  the  Patriarchs  and  the  origin  of 
the  world.  What  a  succession,  what  a  tradition,  what 
a  marvellous  connecting  chain.  If  our  mind,  naturally 
uncertain,  and  by  its  incertitude  become  the  sport 
of  its  own  reasoning,  has  need,  in  questions  where  sal- 
vation is  at  stake,  to  be  steadied  and  determined  by 
some  certain  authority,  what  greater  authority  can 
there  be  than  that  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  com- 
bines in  itself  all  the  authority  of  past  ages,  all  the 
ancient  traditions  of  the  human  race  up  to  its  origin. 


HONORIUS   VINDICATED.  5  ;■ 

Thus  the  society  which  Jesus  Christ  in  fine,  after  ages 
of  expectancy,  founded  on  the  rock,  and  over  which 
Peter  and  his  successors  should  preside  by  His  orders, 
is  justified  by  its  own  continuity,  and  bears  in  its 
eternal  duration  the  impress  of  the  hand  of  God.  It 
is  this  succession,  which  no  heresy,  no  sect,  no  other 
society  but  the  Churchof  God  can  claim.  The  founders 
of  new  sects  among  Christians,  and  the  sects  established 
by  them,  will  be  found  to  have  been  detached  from 
this  great  body,  from  this  ancient  Church  which  Jesus 
Christ  founded,  and  in  which  Peter  and  his  successors 
held  the  first  plate."  To  this  let  us  add  what  this 
"  greatest  of  modern  bishops,  and  no  worshipper  of 
Popes"  says  in  the  first  part  of  his  "  Discourse  on  the 
Unity  of  the  Church  :"  "  What  is  intended  to  sustain 
an  everlasting  Church,  can  itself  have  no  end.  Peter 
will  live  in  his  successors  ;  Peter  will  always  speak  in  his 
chair;  this  the  Fathers  assert;  this  six  hundred  and  thirty- 
bishops  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon  confirmed.  *  *  * 
This  is  the  Roman  Church,  which,  taught  by  St.  Peter 
and  his  successors,  knows  no  heresy.  *  *  *  Thus  the 
Roman  Church  is  always  a  virgin  Church,  the  Roman 
faith  is  always  the  faith  of  the  Church;  what  has  been 
believed,  is  believed  still  ;  the  same  voice  is  heard 
everywhere  ;  and  Peter  remains  in  his  successors,  the 
corner-stone  of  the  faithful.  Jesus  Christ  Himself  has 
said  it,  and  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  sooner 
than  His  word.  But  let  us  see  the  consequences  of 
that  word.  Jesus  Christ  pursues  His  design  and  after 
having  said  to  Peter,  the  eternal  preacher  of  the  faith : 
'Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church ,'  He  adds  :  '  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.'     Thou,  who  hast  the  preroga- 


56  HONORIUS  VINDICATED. 

tive  of  preaching  the  faith,  thou  shalt  have  also  the 
keys,  which  designate  the  authority  of  government ; 
1  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven.'  All  are  subjected  to  these 
keys ;  all,  my  brethren,  kings  and  people,  pastors 
and  flocks;  we  publish  it  with  joy,  for  we  love 
unity,  and  glory  in  our  obedience.  Peter  was  com- 
manded first  '  to  love  more  than  all  the  other  Apostles,' 
and  then '  to  feed'  and  govern  all,  '  both  the  lambs  and 
the  sheep,'  the  little  ones  and  their  mothers,  and  the 
shepherds  themselves  ;  shepherds  towards  the  people, 
but  sheep  in  regard  to  Peter." 

Thus  does  Bossuet,  following  the  Patriarchs,  the 
Prophets,  and  Apostles,  proclaim  aloud  the  infallible 
promises  of  God  to  his  Church  and  her  head.  In  justice 
to  the  great  Bossuet,  we  deemed  it  a  duty  to  say  this 
much.  We  now  return  to  Honorius,  whose  case,  in  our 
opinion,  is  correctly  stated  by  Archbishop  F.  P.  Kenrick 
in  the  brief  notice  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs  appended  to 
the  fourth  volume  of  his  ".Dogmatic  Theology,"  in  these 
few  words :  "  That  he  was  imposed  on  by  Sergius 
of  Constantinople  and  inopportunely  commanded 
silence  in  relation  to  one  or  two  wills  in  Christ,  most 
authors  admit ;  but  that  he  was  guilty  of  heresy  is  de- 
void of  every  semblance  of  truth."  But  the  gist  of 
the  charges  against  him,  and  his  vindication  may  be 
at  once  discovered  from  words  already  quoted  from 
the  concluding  words  of  cap.  xxvii.,  Lib.  vii.,  "  De- 
fensioDeclarationis  cleri  Gallicani." 

"  Honorius  being  duly  interrogated  concerning  the 
faith  by  three  Patriarchs,  gave  most  wicked  answers." 
In  the  first  place,  we  would  ask,  why  was  the  Bishop  of 


HONORIUS  VINDICATED.  57 

Rome  interrogated  by  these  three  Eastern  Patriarchs? 
Is  not  this  very  fact  an  additional  and  undeniable  evi- 
dence that  in  the  East  as  in  the  West,  by  Patriarchs,  as 
well  as  by  bishops,  and  even  by  heretics  the  primacy  of 
the  Roman  See  and  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff  were  acknowledged  ?  The  three  Patri- 
archs referred  to  are,  Sergius  of  Constantinople 
and  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  both  tainted  with  the 
Monothelite  heresy,  and  Sophronius,  of  Jerusalem, 
an  able  and  learned  champion  of  the  Catholic  faith. 
To  these  Honorius  is  said  to  have  given  wicked 
anszvers,  and  all  the  charges  of  heresy  alleged  against 
him  are  to  be  found  in  his  letters  to  them,  and 
particularly  in  his  letters  to  Sergius.  Is  not  this  of 
itself  sufficient  to  show  that  the  case  of  Honorius  offers 
no  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infalli- 
bility, as  we  have  already  explained  it,  and  as  it  has 
been  defined  in  the  famous  Vatican  decree  of  18705 
Where  does  he  teach,  or  pretend  to  teach  the  Universal 
Church  ?  where  does  he  define  or  pretend  to  define  what 
must  be  held  by  the  whole  Church  as  of  Catholic 
faith?  Suppose  that  in  these  letters  some  expressions 
are  found  not  entirely  consistent  with  orthodox  Catho- 
lic faith,  and  grant  that  he  was  deceived  and  fell  into 
the  trap  sprung  upon  him  by  the  wily  Sergius  and 
wrote  to  suppress  all  discussion  about  one  or  two  wills 
in  Christ,  can  any  one  reasonably  say  that  he  taught 
heresy  from  his  throne  ?  or  made  a  dogmatic,  ex  cathedra 
definition  in  regard  to  faith  or  morals?  But  more 
than  that.  With  the  letters  of  Honorius  before  us,  and 
after  a  careful  study  of  the  subject  as  presented  by  the 
clear,  keen,  argumentative  mind  of  Bossuet  himself, 
Honorius    cannot,    in    our   opinion,    be    convicted   of 


58  II  OX  OKI  US  VINDICATED 

heresy,  he  wrote  nothing  but  what  is  capable  of  a  Catho- 
lic meaning.  He  repeatedly  proclaimed  Christ  to  be 
perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  thus  condemning  the 
errors  of  Nestoriusand  Eutyches,  showing  that  though 
he  expressed  himself  inaccurately,  he  thought  correctly 
on  the  two  operations  in  Christ. 

No  wonder,  then,  that  John  IV.,  his  second  successor, 
declared,  as  we  read  in  Alzog's  "Church  History,"  "  that 
Honorius  mistook  the  question  at  issue  to  be,  whether 
or  not  there  were  two  conflicting  human  wills  in 
Christ,  the  one  of  the  spirit,  and  the  other  of  the  flesh, 
which,  if  such  were  the  case,  would  necessarily  imply 
the  opposition  of  the  human  to  the  Divine  will — an 
error  of  which  Honorius  wished  to  disabuse  Sergius." 
In  speakingof  one  will  and  one  theandrie  operation,  he 
meant  nothing  more  than  the  moral  unity  of  the 
Divine  and  human  wills.  "  Not  having  seized  the  real 
drift  of  the  controversy,  it  was  but  natural  that  he 
should  express  himself  obscurely,  and  with  a  lack  of 
precision  in  his  reply  to  the  craftily  worded  letter  of 
Sergius."  (Alzog's"  Church  History,"  vol.  I,  p.  635.) 
From  the  same  source  we  learn  that  not  only  did  his 
successors  sustain  him,  but  the  Abbot  Maximus,  the 
most  acute  theologian  of  his  age,  and  foremost  cham- 
pion of  the  Catholic  cause  against  the  Monothelites, 
especially  after  the  death  of  Sophronius,  asserts  em- 
phatically in  two  different  places  that  Honorius  was 
an  opponent  of  the  Monothelites.  The  heretics,  however, 
used  the  hasty  and  ill-considered  letter  of  Honorius 
in  support  of  their  error,  and  his  secretary,  the  Abbot 
John,  in  vindication  of  his  first  (cursory)  letter  asserted 
openly  that  it  had  been  falsified  (falsely  interpreted) 
by   the   Greeks.     Whereupon    the   Abbot    Maximus 


HONOR! US  VINDICATED. 


5<> 


exclaims:  "Who,  then,  is  a  more  reliable  interpreter 
of  that  letter — the  enlightened  abbot,  who  is  still 
alive,  who  wrote  it  in  the  name  of  Honorius,  or  they 
of  Constantinople,  who  say  what  they  please?"  So 
much,  then,  in  vindication  of  the  orthodoxy  of  Hono- 
rius, but  what  now  about  his  condemnation  by  the 
Sixth  General  Council?  "  He  was  condemned  by  the 
Sixth^General  Council  under  anathema.  Previous  to 
this  anathema,  he  was  sustained  by  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiffs, his  successors,  but  since  the  supreme  judgment  of 
the  council,  the  Pontiffs  have  condemned  him  under 
the  same  anathema."  ("  Defense,"  etc.)  This  sixth 
oecumenical  council,  called  also  the  First  Trillion. 
Synod,  was  opened,  at  Constantinople  Nov.  7,  68a, 
and  presided  over  by  three  legates  of  Pope  Agatho. 
The  Pope's  dogmatical  epistle  was  read  as  the  basis  of 
the  council's  deliberations,  which  defined  the  contro- 
verted point  of  faith  regarding  the  two  wills  in  Christ 
corresponding  to  the  two  natures  so  clearly  and  suc- 
cinctly, that  the  assembled  fathers  cried  out  with  one 
voice :  u  Peter  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Agatho." 
In  the  fourth  session  of  the  council  another  letter  of 
the  same  Pope,  who  was  recognized  as  the  very  mouth- 
piece of  blessed  Peter,  was  read  and  received  without 
opposition,  in  which  he  thrice  solemnly  declares: 
"  Through  the  grace  of  the  omnipotent  God,  this  Apos- 
tolical Roman  Church  will  be  proved  to  have  never  erred 
from  the  path  of  Apostolical  tradition,  nor  has  it  suc- 
cumbed to  heretical  novelties,  but  as  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  faith  it  received  from  its  founders, 
the  Princes  of  the  Apostles,  so  it  remains  untainted 
even  to  the  end,  according  to  the  divine  promise  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour,  spoken  to  the  Prince  of  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  holy  Gospel."  (Luke  xxii.,  32.) 


60  HONORIUS  VINDICATED. 

This  much  premised,  we  answer  the  objections  in  the 
words  of  Dr.,  now  Cardinal,  Hergenrother :  "  A  Pope  is 
not  infallible  in  proceedings  such  as  those  of  Hono- 
rius,  who  contributed  unintentionally  to  the  increase 
of  heresy  by  not  issuing  decisions  against  it.  His  letters 
contain  no  decision,  neither  do  they  contain  any  false 
doctrine.  No  decision  of  his  ever  was,  or  ever  could  be 
condemned  as  false,  otherwise  the  sixth  council  would 
have  contradicted  itself,  for  it  recognized  that  the  Holy 
See  had  in  all  time  the  privilege  of  teaching  only  the 
truth.  He  was  condemned  for  having  rendered  him- 
self morally  responsible  for  the  spread  of  heresy,  by 
having  neglected  to  publish  decisions  against  it,  and 
in  this  sense  alone  was  his  condemnation  confirmed  by 
Leo  II."  ("Catholic  Church  and  Christian  State."  Her- 
genrother, vol.  i.,  p.  83.)  In  this  sense,  then,  and  in  this 
sense  only,  did  the  council  condemn  Honorius,  and  suc- 
ceeding Pontiffs  re-echo  the  condemnation,  that  by  his 
negligence  he  allowed the  unspotted  faith  to  be  defiled. 
Not  as  a  heretic,  then,  but  as  one  who  had  actually  by 
his  culpable  indecision  become  an  abettor  of  heresy  and 
heretics,,  and  he  was  justly  blamed  and  severely  taken 
to  task  for  doing  precisely  what  so  many  wished  Pius 
IX.  to  do,  viz.,  to  put  off  and  leave  undecided  a  grave 
doctrinal  question  that  was  agitating  and  disturbing 
the  Christian  Church  and  severely  testing  its  unity  and 
peace.  Pope  Leo  II.,  who  succeeded  Agatho  before 
the  close  of  the  council,  confirmed  its  decrees  and  its 
condemnation  of  Honorius,  because  the  heretics,  dis- 
torting the  meaning  of  his  words,  made  use  of  his  name 
and  his  authority  to  propagate  their  errors,  and  as  he 
wrote  to  the  Spanish  bishops,  "  because  he  did  not  at 
once  extinguish  the  flame  of  heretical  error,  but  by  his 


IIONORIUS  VINDICATED.  ^ 

negligence  contributed  fuel  to  the  fire."'  We  have  dwelt, 
perhaps  unnecessarily  long  in  vindication  of  these  two 
much  abused  Popes,  but  we  thought  it  well  to  clear 
up  a  matter,  out  of  which  the  enemies  of  the  Papacy 
make  so  much  capital,  and  it  is  not  always  easy  for 
everybody  to  have  access  to  the  historical  documents 
or  the  authorities  on  which  the  solution  of  these  ques- 
tions rests. 


©2  ST.  GREGOR  Y  THE  GREA  T 


XL 


ST.  GREGORY   THE  GREAT  CLAIMING  AND   EXERCISING 
PAPAL  SUPREMACY. 

IN  the  pamphlet  before  us  we  are  told  that :  "  by 
usurpation  Boniface  III.  began,  and  Nicholas  I. 
completed  a  Papacy  ;"  and  that :  "  St.  Gregory  was  the 
last  Bishop  of  Rome  who  obeyed  the  canons  of  the 
Church  in  this  respect,"  that  is,  as  far  as  we  can  gather 
the  meaning  of  the  words  from  the  context,  the  last 
who  held  that  all  bishops  were  "  the  equals  of  their 
brother  in  the  See  of  Rome,"  and  denied  "  any  suprem- 
acy of  one  over  the  others,  such  as  is  claimed  by  the 
Popes."  Now  we  propose  to  show,  from  his  own  words 
and  official  acts,  that  St.  Gregory  claimed  this  Suprem- 
acy of  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  his  brethren  in  the 
episcopate  throughout  the  whole  Church,  just  as  fully, 
and  as  uncompromisingly  as  Boniface  III.,  or  Nicholas 
I.,  or  as  Pius  IX.,  or  Leo  XIII.  Of  course  we  can  show 
that  in  every  age,  from  the  Apostles  down  to  Gregory  ? 
the  same  supreme  authority  was  recognized  in  and  by 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter  in  the  See  of  Rome,  yet  we 
are  pleased  to  have  here  a  starting  point  and  a  de- 
liberate acknowledgment  that  St.  Gregory  was  a  bishop 
who  obeyed  the  canons,  "arid  is  a  reliable  witness 
of  the  "doctrine  of  Catholic  antiquity."  I  will 
not  now  stop    to   discuss  a   "primacy  or   presidency 


EXERCISING  PAPAL  SUPREMACY.  63 

consistent  with  the  co-equality  of  all  bishops  which  the 
Church  itself  has  instituted  or  regulated  by  canons,  but 
forbidding  any  supremacy  of  one  over  the  other,"  as 
"  St.  Gregory,  who  obeyed  the  canons  of  the  Church, 
in  this  respect,"  recognizing  a  primacy  regulated  in- 
deed by  canons,  but  instituted  by  Christ,  and  resting, 
as  all  the  laws  of  the  Church,  rest,  on  the  divine  law, 
claims,  and  as  we  shall  presently  see,  exercises  a  suprem- 
acy of  spiritual  jurisdiction  or  authority  over  bishops, 
archbishops  and  Patriarchs,  but  as  St.  Gregory  is  a  re- 
cognized, legitimate,  and  orthodox  Bishop  of  Rome, 
f  who  obeys  the  canons  of  the  Church,"  we  cannot  be 
much  deceived  in  holding  to  the  primacy  of  the  See 
of  Peter,  and  Papal  supremacy,  as  he  understood  it. 
Neither  will  I  stop  to  point  out  the  childlike  naivete 
of  the  following  passage  :  "  Christ  gave  a  primacy  among 
the  Apostles  to  St.  Peter  ;  but  he  limited  it  by  rebuking 
the  inquiry, '  who  should  be  the  greatest,'  and  by  com- 
manding them  to  call  no  man  master,  they  being  all 
brethren,  with  one  Father  in  Heaven  St.  Peter  him- 
self was  rebuked  as  a  'Satan'  the  moment  he  departed 
from  the  words  of  Jesus." 

It  were  surely  labor  lost  to  argue  with  a  man  who 
can  assert  that  our  Lord's  instructions  to  His  disciples 
regarding  personal  humility  and  warnings  against  per- 
sonal ambition,  His  intimation  that  our  Father  in 
Heaven  is  incomparably  more  to  be  regarded  than 
any  father  upon  earth,  and  that  no  master  is  to  be 
followed,  who  would  lead  us  away  from  Christ ;  His 
paternal  chiding  of  Peter,  callinghim  "  Satan"  on  account 
of  his  indiscreet  zeal  and  his  ardent  but  unenlightened 
and  too  human  love  for  his  Divine  Master,  were  in- 
tended to  limit,  or  rather  destroy — in  the  opinion  of 


04  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT 

those  who  deny  any  primacy,  or  at  least  any  of  divine 
institution — a  primacy  which  our  Blessed  Saviour- 
deemed  necessary  for  the  government  of  His  Church, 
and  which,  though  previously  promised  in  strong  and 
solemn  words  (Matt,  xvi.,  18,  19),  was  actually  con- 
ferred only  after  Peter  had  fully  atoned  for  his  shame- 
ful three  denials,  by  his  triple  profession  of  greater' 
love  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  (John  xxi., 
15,  et  seq.)  But  now,  to  return  to  St.  Gregory,  who  is 
introduced  to  us  as  the  model  Christian  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  contradistinction  to  the  "  despotic  Pontiff  of 
the  modern  Roman  Church,  "  in  these  terms:  "And 
here  is  the  place  to  quote  St.  Gregory,  the  last  Bishop 
of  Rome  who  obeyed  the  canons  of  the  Church  in  this 
respect.  When  a  bishop  flattered  him  with|the  pompous 
title  of  universal  jurisdiction,  Gregory  rebuked  the 
brother  kindly  but  sharply,  in  the  following  weighty 
words :  (Epis.  v. ,  20.  et  seq.)  "  None  of  my  predecessors 
would  use  this  impious  word  (Universal  Bishop),  because 
in  reality  if  a  Patriarch  be  called  universal,  this  takes 
from  all  others  the  title  of  Patriarch.  Far,  very  far 
from  every  Christian  soul  be  the  wish  to  usurp  any- 
thing that  might  diminish,  however  little,  the  honor  of 
his  brethren.  *  *  *  Give  not  to  any  one  the  title  of 
universal,  lest  you  deprive  yourself  of  your  own  due, 
by  offering  what  you  do  not  owe  to  him." 

Surely  our  Old  Catholic"  brother  never  read  these 
letters  of  St.  Gregory,  from  which  he  pretends  to 
quote,  and  to  which  he  gives  references.  He  surely 
would  not  knowingly  and  deliberately  impose  on  the 
public.  If  he  ever  read  these  letters  he  would  know 
that  these  words  of  Gregory  are  not  addressed  to  a 
brother  "  bishop,  who  flattered  him  with  a  pompous 


EXERCISING  PAPAL  SUPREMACY. 


65 


title  of  universal  jurisdiction."  He  would  know  that 
this  very  fact  in  the  history  of  St.  Gregory's  pontificate 
affords  the  strongest  possible  proof  that  he  claimed 
universal  jurisdiction,  and  this  sharp  rebuke  is  admin- 
istered in  the  exercise  of  his  unquestioned  right  to  re- 
prove, correct  and  condemn  not  simple  bishops  only, 
but  Patriarchs  as  well,  and  even  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople. Now  what  is  the  fact  in  the  case  ?  The 
Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople,  called  the  Faster, 
sending  to  Rome  an  account  of  the  sentence  passed 
against  a  priest  accused  of  heresy,  styles  himself  re- 
peatedly, oecumenical  or  universal  Patriarch,  and  Pope 
St.  Gregory,  in  his  undoubted  right  as  head  of  the 
Universal  Church  and  guardian  of  the  rights  of  other 
bishops  and  other  patriarchs,  reproves  this  as  an  ar- 
rogant, ambitious  usurpation  of  a  pompous  title, 
and  observing  the  order  of  fraternal  connection,  twice 
admonished  him  privately  by  his  nuncio  in  Constanti- 
nople, and  when  this  failed  to  bring  him  to  a  sense  of 
his  fault,  he  wrote  in  sharp  but  fatherly  reproof  to  him- 
self, to  the  Emperor  Mauritius,  to  the  Empress  Con- 
stantina  Augusta,  and  to  other  eastern  bishops,  and  in 
particular  a  joint  letter  to  St.  Eulogius,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  and  St.  Anastasius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch. 
It  is  from  this  letter  to  those  patriarchs,  the  xliii.,  not 
the  xx.,  that  the  language  above  quoted  is  taken, 
though  words  to  the  same  effect  and  in  the  same  sense 
are  found  in  all  of  them. 

To  make  the  matter  clearer,  I  will  give  a  short  extract 
from  some  of  these  noble  productions,  worthy  the  pen 
of  Gregory  the  Great ;  and  first  from  Epist.  xx.  L.  5, 
written  to  the  Emperor  Mauritius,  and  given  as  author- 
ity for  the  utterly  false  assertion  that  the  great  Pope 


66  ST.  GREGOR  Y  THE  GREA  T 

was  only  rejecting  a  pompous  title  offered  to  him  by 
a  flattering  friend  :  "  It  is  evident,"  writes  the  Pope  to 
the  emperor,  "  to  all  acquainted  with  the  Gospel,  that 
by  our  Lord's  words,  the  care  of  the  whole  Church  was 
committed  to  St.  Peter,  Apostle,  and  Prince  of  ail  the 
Apostles.  For  to  him  is  said  :  Peter,  lovest  thou  me  ? 
Feed  my  sheep.  (John  xxi.,  17.)  To  him  is  said  :  Behold 
Satan  hath  sought  to  sift  you  as  wheat  and  I  have  prayed 
for  thee,  Peter,  that  thy  faith  fail  not,  and  thou  at  length 
converted,  confirm  thy  brethren.  (Luke  xxii.,  31.)  To 
him  is  said  :  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  A  nd  I  zvillgive  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  bind  on  earth  it 
shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  upon  earth  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.  (Matt, 
xxi.,  19.)  Behold  he  receives  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  given  to 
him,  the  care  and  the  princedom  of  the  whole  Church 
are  committed  to  him."  Verily  St.  Gregory  does  not 
agree  with  our  friend  about  the  limitation  of  the  pri- 
macy of  Peter — "  and  still  he  is  not  called  the  universal 
Apostle,  and  the  most  holy  man,  John,  our  fellow-priest, 
endeavors  to  be  called  the  universal  bishop.  I  am 
compelled  to  exclaim  and  to  say  :  O  tempora  !  O 
mores  f" 

He  concludes  his  letter  to  the  emperor  thus  :  "  In 
obedience  to  our  master's  orders  I  have  written  to  our 
aforesaid  fellow-priest  kindly,  and  I  have  humbly  ad- 
monished him  to  correct  this  desire  of  vain-glory.  If 
he  is  pleased  to  listen  to  me,  he  will  have  a  devoted 
brother.  If  he  persist  in  his  pride,  I  see  what  will 
follow ;  he  will  have  Him  his  enemy  of  whom  it  is  said  : 


EXER  CI  SING  PAPAL  S  UP  REM  A  C  Y.  §y 

God  resist eih  the  proud,  but  giveth  his  grace  to  the 
humble"  (James  iv.,  6.)  In  the  same  strain  he  writes 
(Epist.  xxi.)  to  the  empress,  asking  her  to  use  her  in- 
fluence to  bring  John  to  a  sense  of  duty,  and  then 
turning  to  another  matter  that  concerned  him  as  head  of 
the  Church  and  Supreme  Universal  Pastor,  exercising 
the  power  of  the  keys  committed  to  Peter,  he  writes : 
"  The  bishop  of  the  city  of  Salon,  Maximus,  has  been 
consecrated  without  my  knowledge,  or  consent,  and 
thus  has  been  done  what  was  never  done  under  pre- 
vious princes.  Which  as  soon  as  I  heard,  I  wrote  to 
the  prevaricator  that  he  should  not  presume  to  cele- 
brate the  solemnities  of  Mass,  until  I  should  learn  that 
this  was  done  by  orders  of  our  most  serene  Lords,  and 
this  I  commanded  him  under  pain  of  excommunica- 
tion." But  we  will  find  instances  enough  in  Gregory's 
pontificate  of  this  claim  of  authority,  and  compulsion  of 
obedience,  or  in  other  words  that  Gregory,  who  obeyed 
the  canons  and  was  the  model  Bishop  of  the  Christian 
Church  of  antiquity,  claimed  and  exercised  all  the 
privileges  and  powers,  all  the  authority  and  jurisdiction 
over  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Universal  Church,  which  the 
Pope,  of  to-day  claims.  To  John  himself,  the  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  St.  Gregory  writes:  (Epist.  xviii., 
L.  5.)-  "Your  fraternity  remembers  how  great  was 
the  peace  and  concord  of  churches  when  you  were 
promoted  to  the  sacerdotal  dignity.  But  with  what 
hardihood  and  strange  swelling  pride,  have  you  sought  to 
usurp  to  yourself  a  new  title,  from  which  the  hearts  of  all 
your  brethren  might  receive  scandal."  He  then  re- 
minds him  how  Pope  Pelagius,  his  predecessor,  had 
written  to  him  and  ordered  the  archdeacon  not  to 
hold  communion  with  him  until  he  laid  aside  his  pre- 


68  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT 

tensions,  and  that  abominable  name  of  Universal 
Bishop,  so  derogatory  to  the  honor,  not  only  of  the 
Holy  See,  but  of  all  bishops,  and  continues :  "  Certainly 
Peter,  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  was  a  member  of  the 
Holy  and  Universal  Church.  Paul,  Andrew,  John, 
what  else  were  they  but  heads  of  their  respective  peo- 
ple, and  still  they  were  all  members  under  one  head. 
To  embrace  all  in  a  brief  speech,  the  saints  before  the 
law,  the  saints  under  the  law,  the  saints  under  the  dis- 
pensation of  grace,  all  perfecting  the  body  of  the  Lord, 
are  constituted  members  of  the  Church  and  not  one 
even  wished  to  have  himself  called  Universal.  See  and 
own,  then,  what  an  arrogance  it  is  to  ambition  a  name 
which  none  of  the  saints  presumed  to  bear.  Were  not 
the  bishops  of  this  Apostolic  See,  to  which,  God  so  dis- 
posing, I  have  been  raised,  called  as  a  title  of  honor,  Uni- 
versal Bishops  by  the  venerable  council  of  Chalcedon? 
And  nevertheless  no  one  ever  wished  to  have  that  title, 
no  o,ne  used  that  rash  name,  lest  in  taking  to  them- 
selves in  that  rank  of  Pontiffs  a  special  or  singular 
glory  they  might  seem  to  deny  the  same  to  all  their 
brethren." 

This  same  he  repeats  again  and  again  in  several  of 
his  epistles,  showing  how  unseemly  it  was  in  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  arrogate  to  hirnself  a 
title,  which  was  conceded  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  but 
which  they  never  would  use,  and  which,  even  when  ex- 
acting obedience  to  their  supreme  authority,  and  ex- 
ercising, as  in  this  very  instance,  the  powers  of  a 
Supreme  Pastor  over  the  whole  flock  of  Christ,  they 
would  not  employ,  but  rather  would  in  their  humility 
be  called  "  the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,"  and 
addressed  the  bishops,  archbishops,  and  patriarchs  as 


EXERCISING  PAPAL  SUPREMACY.  69 

do  the  Popes  of  our  own  day  as  brothers.  St.  Gregory 
then  protested  against  the  title  of  oecumenical  or  uni- 
versal Pope  or  patriarch,  in  the  sense  just  explained, 
and  called  it  blasphemous  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Byzantine  Patriarch,  who  unrighteously  arrogated  to 
himself  a  name  which  the  Roman  Pontiffs  were  un- 
willing to  accept  even  when  offered  by  general  councils. 
Many  other  beautiful  and  pointed  things  I  might  cite 
from  these  fervent  and  eloquent  letters  of  the  great 
Pope,  and  in  particular,  I  may  mention  those  written 
to  his  friend  Eulogius,  in  which,  as  the  historian  Rohr- 
bacher  tells  us,  the  holy  Pope  sums  up  and  teaches, 
"  what  are  the  principle,  the  model,  the  means  and  the 
end  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  its  unity.  Its  princi- 
ple isone  God  and  three  persons  ;  the  model  of  its  unity, 
the  union  of  the  three  divine  persons  in  the  same  es- 
sence ;  the  mediator,  who  unites  it  to  heaven,  and  in 
heaven  to  the  one  undivided  Trinity,  is  Jesus  Christ, 
giving  to  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
the  means  of  this  unity  among  men.  is  the  union  of 
the  three  Patriarchs  and  the  other  bishops  with  the 
same  Peter,  from  whom  their  authority  proceeds ;  the 
final  end,  is  the  consummation  of  this  unity  in  the 
three  divine  persons.  .The  pretensions  of  the  bishops 
of  Constantinople  were  directly  at  variance  with  this 
divine  ensemble.  They  grounded  their  claims,  not  on 
God,  nor  on  Jesus  Christ,  nor  on  Peter,  but  on  the 
residence  of  the  emperors  in  their  city.  Therefore  they 
would  be  called  Universal  Bishop.  And  the  Greeks 
argued  later  that  this  title  of  universal  belongs  not  to 
the  Roman  Pontiff  from  the  time  the  empire  passed 
from  Rome  to  Byzantium,  which  implies  that  the  au- 
thority and  hierarchy  of  the  Church  came  not  from  Jesus 


70 


ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT 


Christ  but  from  Cassar.  And  thus  this  frivolous  title, 
which  appeared  to  Mauritius  but  an  unmeaning  word, 
concealed  the  whole  system  of  Anti-christ,  and  its  full 
significance  the  Pope  alone  realized."  As  in  the 
Eastern  Church,  so  also  in  the  West,  was  the  authority 
of  St.  Gregory  recognized.  His  untiring  vigilance,  and 
inflexible  firmness  and  burning  zeal  for  the  integrity 
of  the  faith  and  the  observance  of  ecclesiastical  discip- 
line are  seen  in  his  numerous  writings,  but  what  we 
wanted  to  show  was  that  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  who  is 
acknowledged  to  be  a  true  and  model  Bishop  of  Rome, 
living  up  to  the  canons  of  the  ancient  Christian  Church, 
was  as  much  a  Pope  by  the  universal  jurisdiction  which 
he  claimed,  and  the  supreme  pastoral  authority  which 
he  exercised  over  the  Church  and  the  bishops  of  his 
day  as  the  Popes  .of  our  own  times. 

This  is  seen  abundantly  in  this  affair  regard- 
ing the  title  of  oecumenical  or  universal  bishop,  and 
the  Patriarch,  John  the  Faster,  afterwards  publicly  ac- 
knowledged Gregory's  authority  and  referred  ecclesi- 
astical causes,  even  those  regarding  simple  priests,  to 
him  for  final  and  definitive  judgment.  A  few  more  ex- 
amples of  the  exercise  of  supreme  appellative  ju- 
risdiction by  St.  Gregory  may  not  be  out  of  place. 
Honoratus,  arch-deacon  of  Salon  in  Dalmatia,  accused 
his  bishop,  Natalis,  of  unjust  treatment,  and  appealed  to 
St.  Gregory  to  be  reinstated  in  the  office  from  which 
Natalis  had  deposed  him.  The  saint  wrote  to  Natalis 
to  restore  Honoratus,  and  if  there  still  remained  any 
subject  of  strife,  "  let  the  arch-deacon  come  hither, 
and  send  some  competent  person  to  plead  your  cause, 
that  thus  with  the  help  of  the  Lord  we  may  be  able, 
without  regard  to  persons,  to  decide   in  favor  of  jus- 


EXERCISING  PAPAL  SUPREMACY.  J\ 

tice."  (L.  i.,  Epist.  xix.)  The  bishop  not  heeding  this 
command,  Gregory  wrote  to  him  again  in  March,  592  : 
"  Reinstate  Honoratus  immediately  on  the  receipt  of 
this  our  letter.  If  you  defer  longer,  know  that  you  are 
deprived  of  the  use  of  the  pallium,  which  has  been 
granted  you  by  this  see.  Should  you  continue  in  your 
obstinacy,  you  will  be  deprived  of  the  participation  in 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  after  which  we  will 
examine  juridically  whether  you  shall  continue  in  the 
episcopacy.  As  to  the  one  whom  you  have  ordained 
arch-deacon  to  the  prejudice  of  Honoratus,  we  depose 
him  from  that  dignity,  and  if  he  continue  to  exercise  its 
functions,  he  will  be  deprived  of  Holy  Communion." 
(L.  ii.,  Epist.  xviii.)  The  bishop  submitted,  and  after 
his  death,  which  occurred  shortly  afterwards,  Honora- 
tus, with  the  approval  of  the  Pope,  was  elected  by  the 
clergy  to  the  vacant  see.  The  bishops,  however,  of  the 
province  did  not  concur  in  his  election,  and  preferred 
another,  called  Maximus,  whereupon  the  Pope  wrote  to 
the  bishops  of  Dalmatia,  forbidding  them  by  the  autho- 
rity of  St.  Peter  to  consecrate  a  bishop  of  Salon  with- 
out his  consent,  under  pain  of  being  deprived  of  the 
participation  in  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and 
of  the  nullity  of  the  election.  (L.  iv.,  Epist.  x.)  It  is 
of  this  Maximus  that  St.  Gregory  spoke  in  his  letter 
to  the  empress.  If  we  now  turn  to  Gaul,  we  will  see 
his  authority  everywhere  acknowledged.  He  made,  as 
we  have  already  remarked,  Virgilius  of  Aries,  his  own 
vicar,  sending  him  the  pallium,  and  giving  him  metro- 
political  jurisdiction  over  other  bishops.  In  England, 
to  which  he  had  sent  St.  Augustine,  he  regulated  all 
the  ecclesiastical  affairs,  gave  authority  to  Augustine 
to   consecrate   other  bishops,  and  expressly  declares 


72 


ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT 


that,  "  Besides  the  bishops  ordained  by  yourself  and 
the  bishop  of  York,  we  wish  also  all  the  bishops  of 
Britain  to  be  subject  to  you."  (L.  xi.,  Epist.  lxv.)  In 
a  memorial  replying  to  St.  Augustine,  he  even  goes 
into  details  of  Church  government,  and  among  other 
things  allows  St.  Augustine,  whilst  the  only  English 
bishop,  to  consecrate  without  the  assistance  of  other 
bishops,  thus  forestalling  by  centuries,  objections  of 
the  violation  of  canonical  rule  made  against  some  of 
our  consecrations,  and  showing  that  a  Bishop  of  Rome 
even  as  observant  of  the  canons  as  St.  Gregory  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be,  could  dispense  with  canons  of  dis- 
cipline when  there  existed  sufficient  cause. 

Thus  is  St.  Gregory  shown  to  have  acted  the  Pope 
much  more  than  poor  Boniface  III.,  his  second  suc- 
cessor, who  is  blamed  for  having  initiated  the  usurpa- 
tions of  the  Papacy,  though  he  only  reigned  from 
February  19th,  607,  to  November  10th  of  the  same  year. 
The  honor  of  beginning  the  Papacy  within  so  brief  a 
pontificate  is  doubtless  accorded  to  him,  because  he  is 
said  to  have  obtained  from  the  Emperor  Phocas,  who 
had  succeeded  Mauritius,  an  acknowledgment  that 
the  Apostolical  See  of  St.  Peter,  that  is,  the  Roman 
Church,  was  the  first  and  chief  of  all  the  churches. 
Whether  the  emperor  actually  subscribed  to  such  a 
document  or  not  is  of  little  consequence,  as  what  we 
have  seen  of  St.  Gregory,  how  emphatically  this  claim 
was  made,  and  positively  enforced  by  him,  shows  the 
existence  of  a  full-fledged  Papacy  before  either  Boni- 
face or  Phocas.  Not  to  become  entirely  too  prolix, 
we  beg  to  refer  our  readers  to  Dr.  Hergenrother's,  ad- 
mirable little  work  on  the  "  Catholic  Church  and  Chris- 
tian State,"  (vol.  1.  Essay  11,  p.  93)  for  clear  and  con- 


EXERCISING  PAPAL  SUPREMACY.  73 

vincing  testimony  that  not  only  was  the  Papacy  in  ex- 
istence, but  that  Papal  infallibility  was  believed  and 
taught  in  the  first  six  centuries.  I  ought*,  perhaps,  for 
such  as  wish  to  verify  rrty  statements,  say  that  I  have 
quoted  the  epistles  of  St.  Gregory  from  the  Abbi 
Mignes  Patrologitz  cursus  completas,  torn.  77.  Paris,  1 849. 


74  CA  TH0L1C  BISHOPS  NOT  MERE 


XII. 

CATHOLIC  BISHOPS  NOT  SIMPLE  PRESBYTERS  OR  MERE 
VICARS  OF  THE  POPE. 

THE  next  gross  misstatement  of  Catholic  doctrine 
growing  out  of  this  controversy,  which  I  feel 
myself  called  upon  to  correct,  is  that  Catholic  bishops 
are  now  "reduced  to  the  rank  of  presbyters;"  that, 
"The  modern  theology  of  Rome  has  abolished 
the  episcopal  order,  and  maintains  nothing  but  an 
episcopal  office,  which  is  held  at  the  nod  of  the  Pon- 
tiff by  a  class  of  men  in  the  order  of  presbyters  who 
are  mere  vicars  of  the  Pope  in  their  several  dioceses, 
but  have  no  power  at  all  as  true  bishops."  This  same 
idea  is  frequently  repeated  under  various  forms  of  ex- 
pression, all  more  or  less  discourteous,  and  sometimes 
actually  insulting,  and  in  proof  of  all  this,  references 
are  given  to  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  St.  Liguori's  Theology ;  references  which,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  prove  nothing  of  the  kind.  To 
prove  that  the  modern  Roman  Church  does  not  reduce 
its  bishops  to  the  rank  of  mere  presbyters ;  that  the 
modern  theology  of  Rome  has  not  abolished  the  episcopal 
order,  and  that  as  true  bishops,  the  bishops  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  have  all  the  power  both  of  order  and  juris- 
diction ever  possessed  or  exercised  by  bishops  in  the 
primitive    Roman   Church   in    its   Catholic  purity,   we 


'VICARS  OF  THE  POPE.  75 

acknowledge,  and,  if  necessary,  can  demonstrate  that  in 
the  first,  second,  third  and  fourth  centuries  of  the 
Church,  bishops  were  held  to  be  a  distinct  order  from 
mere  presbyters,  and  by  divine  institution,  superior  to 
them  in  rank,  dignity  and  power,  and  we  will  give  a 
simple  brief  statement  of  the  authoritative  teaching  of 
the  Catholic  Church  of  to-day  from  the  Council  of  Trent 
and  St.  Liguori,  the  two  authorities  quoted  against  us. 
We  beg,  moreover,  to  refer  any  one  wishing  either  to 
satisfy  himself  that  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  modem 
theology  of  Rome,  or  to  see  the  question  more  fully 
discussed,  to  a  compendium  of  dogmatic  theology,  a 
copy  of  which  last  year  I  had  the  honor  of  receiving 
from  the  hands  of  its  venerable  and  learned  author, 
H.  Hurter,  S.J.,  S.Th.,  et  Ph.D.  (torn.  iii.  CEniponte, 
1879),  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Innsbruck,  and 
a  son,  by  the  way,  of  the  illustrious  Hurter,  who  so 
nobly  vindicated  the  character  of  Innocent  III.  "If 
any  one  say  that  there  is  not,  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
a  sacred  hierarchy  by  divine  ordinance  instituted,  which 
consists  of  bishops,  priests  and  ministers,  let  him  be 
anathema,"  says  the  Council  of  Trent.  (Sess.  23,  Can.  6.) 
As  presbyters  or  priests  outrank  deacons,  so  bishops 
outrank  presbyters,  and  that  this  sacred  body  of  rulers 
in  the  Church,  thus  graduated,  co-related  and  subordin- 
ated, is  of  divine  institution,  is  the  express  teaching  of 
modern  Rome. 

Not  mere  presbyters,  then,  are  bishops,  but  by  divine 
institution  they  are  distinct.  But  not  only  are  they 
distinct  from,  but  they  are,  by  the  teaching  of  the  same 
council,  superior  to  simple  presbyters:  "If  any  one 
say,  that  bishops  are  not  superior  to  priests,  or  that 
they  have  not  the  power  of  confirming  and  ordaining, 


^6  CA  THOLIC  BISHOPS  NO  T  MERE 

or  that  that  power  is  common  to  them  and  priests, 
let  him  be  anathema."  (Sess.  23,  Can.  7.)  How  then 
can  it  be  said  that  bishops  are  simple  presbyters  when 
the  highest  authority  of  the  Church  thus  distinctly  and 
explicitly  states  the  contrary,  and  all  modern  theolo- 
gians teach  with  the  Church  that  there  are  powers  at- 
tached to  the  episcopal  order  which  simple  priests  can- 
not exercise.  The  simple  priest,  through  the  sacred 
laver  of  regeneration,  begets  children  to  the  Church, 
but  only  bishops  can  by  the  imposition  of  hands  beget 
fathers  and  masters.  That  this  power  attaches  to  the 
episcopal  order  by  divine  right  and  not  by  any  eccles- 
iastical law,  may  be  shown  from  the  fact  that  although 
in  case  of  necessity  laics  may  validly  confer  baptism, 
and  priests  by  special  delegation  may  be  empowered 
to  confirm,  never  has  the  Church  held  valid  an  ordina- 
tion of  priest  or  bishop  unless  when  administered  by  a 
validly  consecrated  bishop.  And  never  has  the  Church 
attempted  to  withdraw  this  power  from  the  bishop. 
She  simply  declared  such  ordinations  illicit  and  sac- 
religious,  but  still  valid,  even  when  performed  by  an 
excommunicated,  deposed,  or  heretical  bishop,  from 
whom  she  has  withdrawn  all  jurisdiction,  and  thereby 
disqualified  him  from  transmitting  lawful  succession. 

Not  only  does  the  modern  theology  of  Rome  then 
establish  the  superiority  of  bishops  over  simple  pres- 
byters but  the  Roman  Pontifical,  in  the  ordination 
service  of  the  priest,  plainly  distinguishes  between 
the  high  priests  (pontifices  summos),  placed  over  the 
people  to  rule  them,  and  the  men  of  a  lower  order 
and  second  dignity  {scquentis  ordinis  viros,  el  seeun- 
des  dignitatis),  chosen  to  co-operate  with  and  aid  the 
higher  order,  as  the  seventy  prudent  men  aided  Moses 


VICARS  OF  THE  rOPE. 


77 


in  the  desert,  and  as  our  Lord  associated  with  the 
Apostles  other  disciples  and  teachers  of  faith.  The 
learned  Hurter,  in  the  work  already  mentioned  (p.  428), 
lays  down  this  thesis  :  "  The  rite  by  which  bishops  are 
consecrated  is  a  true  order,  distinct  from  the  other  orders 
and  a  true  sacrament,"  in  which  he  combats  the  teach- 
ing of  the  ancient  scholastics  that  the  episcopacy  was 
only  an  extension  of  the  priesthood,  and  maintains  that 
it  is  now  the  common  opinion,  and  the  one  by  all 
means  to  be  held,  that  the  episcopate  is  an  order  dis- 
tinct not  merely  in  grade  or  rank  {gradu),  but  also  in 
species  {specie)  from  the  priesthood.  We  may  with 
the  same  author  sum'  up  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
regarding  the  hierarchy  in  these  three  points  :  (1)  The 
hierarchy  is  divided  into  three  degrees ;  (2)  The  origin 
of  this  division  is  divine  ;  (3)  As  priests  are  superior  to 
deacons,  so  bishops  are  superior  to  presbyters.  This 
surely  were  more  than  sufficient  to  vindicate  the 
teaching  of  modern  Roman  theology  on  the  point  in 
question,  and  to  show  how  ungrounded  and  false  the 
assertion  that  we  had  abolished  the  episcopal  order,  and 
reduced  bishops  to  the  rank  of  were  presbyters. 

We  need  then  take  no  further  notice  of  such  glar- 
ingly false  charges  as  these  :  "  Popes  had  taught  them 
that  bishops  were  only  presbyters,  in  order  to  magnify 
themselves  as  the  only  and  universal  bishops."  "  Such 
was  the  common  teaching  of  school  divines  before  the 
Reformation :"  "  It  is  the  Roman  doctrine  now.  Yet 
as  our  good  friend  insists  that  these  are  dogmas  of  our 
own  Church,  established  by  infallible  authority,  and  in 
proof  hereof  quotes  in  a  foot-note  "  Liguori,  who  says 
some  think  the  episcopate,  probably,  an  order,  torn, 
vi.,  p.  10,"  we  beg  our  readers  to  bear  with  us  a  little 


78 


CA  THOLIC  BISHOPS  NO  T  MERE 


longer,  while  we  show  what  St.  Liguori  really  does  say, 
for  although  we  do  not  regard  him  as  in  any  respect 
an  "  infallible  authority,"  we  respect  him  as  a  saint 
and  doctor  of  the  Church,  and  certainly  of  higher  au- 
thority on  points  of  Christian  doctrine  and  Catholic 
theology  than  the  man  who  pretending  to  give  tome 
and  very  page  misquotes  and  travesties  his  statements. 
Leaving  some  one  else  to  hunt  up  and  verify  the  re- 
ference, torn.  vi.  p.  10;  in  the  edition  (Mechliniae 
MDCCCXLV.)  of  the  works  of  St.  Liguori  now  before 
me,  we  find  (torn.  7,  Lib.  6,  Treat  5.  de  ordine,  p.  220) 
as  follows :  "  The  episcopate  is  an  order,  by  which 
special  power  is  conferred  of  confirming  the  faithful, 
and  ordaining  ministers  of  the  sacraments,  and  of  con- 
secrating things  appertaining  to  the  divine  worship." 
And  in  the  same  treatise :  (p.  223)  "  It  is  asked — Is  the 
episcopate  an  order  distinct  from  the  priesthood  ?  St. 
Thomas,  St.  Bonaventure,  and  others  deny,  saying  that 
it  is  an  extension  of  the  order  of  the  priesthood.  But 
more  commonly  theologians  affirm  that  it  is  an  order 
distinct  from  the  priesthood,  because  in  it  a  distinct 
character  is  communicated,  and  a  special  power  re- 
garding the  Eucharist  is  given,  namely,  that  of  conse- 
crating ministers  of  this  sacrament ;  also,  because  the 
order  of  the  episcopate  is  conferred  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands  and  the  form,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc." 
To  this  let  me  add  a  short  extract  from  a  work  by 
Rev.  Aloysius  Togni,  entitled,  "  Instructio  pro  Sacris 
Ecclesias  Ministris,"  which,  we  are  told,  is  of  the  highest 
authority  in  Rome,  being  commonly  used  in  the  Roman 
seminaries.  This  we  copy  from  note  viii.,  in  Appen- 
dix to  "  The  Anglican  Ministry,"  by  Arthur  W.  Hutton, 
M.  A.: 


VICARS  Of  THE  POPE.  ^Q 

"What  is  the  difference  between  a  priest  and  a 
bishop?  A  bishop  by  divine  right  is  superior  to  a 
priest,  both  in  power  of  order  and  jurisdiction.  In  the 
power  of  order,  for  he  administers  the  sacraments  of 
Orders  and  Confirmation,  in  regard  to  which,  the 
Council  of  Trent  says,  others  of  an  inferior  order,  and 
therefore  priests,  (presbyters)  "have  no  power:"  in 
jurisdiction,  also,  because  the  bishop  has  proper  and  or- 
dinary jurisdiction  through  the  whole  diocese;  but  the 
priest  has  either  only  vicarious  and  delegated  juris- 
diction or  ordinary  jurisdiction  in  a  certain  part  of  the 
diocese.  Whence  the  bishop  is  the  summit  {apex)  and 
complement  of  the  priesthood  (sacerdotii)  holding  the 
first  place  in  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy." 

Clearly  then  modern  Roman  theology  has  not  abol- 
ished the  episcopal  order  or  confounded  bishops  with 
presbyters,  and  it  only  remains  for  me  to  remark,  that 
those  Catholic  theologians,  such  as  St.  Thomas  and  St. 
Bonaventure,  whose  names  stamp  value  and  weight 
on  whatever  opinions  they  may  defend,  or  whatever 
side  of  a  controversy  they  espouse,  in  denying  that 
the  episcopate  was  an  order  distinct  from  the  priest- 
hood, never  dreamt  of  saying  that  bishops  were 
simple  presbyters  or  mere  vicars  of  the  Pope  in  their 
several  dioceses,  as  "  Old  Catholic"  does.  They  taught 
that  there  were  seven  orders,  four  minor  and  three 
major  or  sacred  orders:  that  the  priesthood  (saccr- 
dotium)  was  the  highest  order  in  the  Church  ;  that  this 
saccrdotium  or  priesthood  was  two-fold,  embracing  the 
presbyterate,  or  inferior  priesthood,  and  the  episco- 
pate, or  superior  priesthood,  that  saccrdotium  was 
therefore  a  generic  term,  of  which  the  episcopate  was 
the  extension,  the  plenitude  and  the  crown :  and  that 


g0  VICARS  OF  THE  POPE. 

though  in  rank  the  bishop  was  even  by  divine  institu- 
tion distinct  from  and  superior  to  the  priest,  yet  the 
episcopate  was  not,  properly  speaking,  a  distinct  order 
and  sacrament.  This  differs,  toto  ccclo,  from  the  mis- 
statments  we  are  combating,  and  it  shows  how  easily 
persons  may  be  deceived,  who  take  things  at  trust,  or 
at  second-hand,  or  who  know  of  Catholic  theology 
only  what  they  glean  from  a  superficial  reading  of 
some  elementary  hand-book  of  Christian  doctrine. 


THE  ANCIENT  FA  THERS  VINDICA  TED.  gj 


XIII. 
TEACHINGS  OF  ANCIENT  FATHERS  VINDICATED. 

WE  can  hardly  excuse  a  man  making  pretensions 
to  theological  knowledge  and  patristic  lore, 
quoting  the  ancient  fathers  and  their  writings,  and  yet 
putting  forth  garbled,  falsified,  and  interpolated  cita- 
tions, thus  misleading  simple,  unsophisticated  minds, 
to  the  prejudice  of  Catholic  truth  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  With  a  theologian's  knowl- 
edge of  the  question  in  dispute  between  Catholic 
doctors  regarding  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Orders,  and 
the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, no  sincere  seeker  after  truth  could  quote  the 
catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Chapter  vii.,  Ques- 
tions xii.,  xxii.,  xxv.,  in  proof  of  assertions  which  we 
have  proved  above  to  be  so  false  and  so  contradictory 
to  the  decrees  and  canons  of  the  council.  Again,  "  St. 
Cyprian  (A  D.  250)  on  '  The  Unity  of  the  Church,'  lays 
down  certain  maxims,  which  in  his  days  were  univers- 
ally accepted,  thus."  Here  follow  four  propositions, 
all  more  or  less  garbled,  and  evidently  intended  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  St.  Cyprian,  who  occupied  the  See 
of  Carthage  from  248  to  September  14th,  258,  held 
principles  and  taught  maxims  in  opposition  to  the 
primacy  of  the  Holy  See,  yet  perhaps  not  one  of  the 
early  Fathers  more  strenuously  defends  the  preroga- 


$2  TEA  CHI  KG  S  Of  THE 

tives  of  the  chair  of  Peter,  which  he  styles  the  ruling 
chair,  or  more  frequently  appeals  to  the  authority  of 
Peter's  successors,  as  the  centre  and  source  of  unity  in 
the  Church.  Certainly  no  one  who  ever  read  his  ad- 
mirable treatise,  "  On  the  Unity  of  the  Church,"  could 
have  the  face  to  mention  either  it  or  its  author  in 
assailing  the  claim  of  Papal  supremacy,  and  universal 
jurisdiction  of  the  See  of  Peter.  We  would  ardently 
desire  to  have  the  whole  treatise  in  a  good  English 
dress  introduced  to  the  English-speaking  community. 
No  better  testimony  could  be  adduced,  that  the  maxims 
and  principles  of  St.  Cyprian,  and  universally  accepted 
in  his  time,  regarding  the  Papacy,  are  identical  with 
those  held  by  the  Catholic  Church  to-day  Pardon  us 
then,  dear  readers,  a  short  extract  to  supplement  the 
mutilated  excerpts  of  our  "  Old  Catholic"  controversial- 
ist. "  The  proof  of  faith  is  easy  and  compendious, 
because  true.  The  Lord  speaks  to  Peter :  •  I  say  to 
thee,'  He  says,  '  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  And  to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  Of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth,  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven ;  and  whatso- 
ever thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
heaven.'  And  again  he  says  to  him,  after  His  resurrec- 
tion. '  Feed  my  sheep.'  Upon  that  one  individual  He 
builds  His  Church,  and  to  him  He  commits  His  sheep  to 
be  fed.  And  although  after  the  resurrection  He  gives 
to  all  His  Apostles  equal  power,  and  says:  'As  the 
Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you  ;  Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost;  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  shall 
be  forgiven  them ;  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they 
shall  be  retained;'  yet,  to  manifest  unity.  He  disposed 


ANCIENT  FA  THERS  VINDICA  TED.  83 

by  His  authority  the  origin  of  the  same  unity,  which 
begins  from  One.  Even  the  other  Apostles  were  cer- 
tainly what  Peter  was,  being  endowed  with  equal  par- 
ticipation of  honor  and  power,  but  the  beginning  pro- 
ceeds from  unity,  and  the  primacy  is  given  to  Peter y 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  may  be  shown  to  be  one, 
and  the  chair  one." 

In  other  places  St.  Cyprian  calls  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  root  and  matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the 
ruling  Church  whence  sacerdotal  unity  has  arisen.  So  tha  t, 
as  the  learned  Dr.  Kenrick,  in  'his "  Primacy  of  the 
Apostlic  See,"  tells  us,  the  violent  opponent  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  Barrow,  admits  that,  "  St.  Cyprian 
considered  St.  Peter  to  have  received  from  Christ  a 
primacy  of  order,"  and  Bishop  Hopkins  of  Vermont 
was  forced  to  sigh  over  the  fact  that  so  early  did  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  endeavor  to  secure  dominion  and  suprem- 
acy, and  that  it  must  be  granted  that  in  the  year  220,  the 
doctrine  was  partially  admitted  that  the  unity  of  the 
Church  took  its  rise  in  the  See  or  diocese  of  Peter.  And 
Hallam  ("  Middle  Ages,"  Chap,  vii.)  confirms  this,  say- 
ing :  "  Irenaeus  rather  vaguely,  and  Cyprian  more 
positively,  admit,  or  rather  assert,  the  primacy  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which  the  latter  seems  to 
have  regarded  as  a  kind  of  centre  of  Catholic  unity." 
The  appeal,  then,  to  the  early  Fathers  furnishes  little 
comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  Holy  See,  and  a  study  of 
those  early  lights  of  the  Christian  Church  must  con- 
vince any  earnest,  candid  inquirer  that  the  Papacy, 
its  powers  and  prerogatives,  are  of  divine  origin,  and 
hence  neither  Tertullian,  nor  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins, 
teach  anything  but  what  we  teach  to-day  in  the  quota- 
tions urged  against  us.     And  I  would  here  close  th:s 


84 


TEACHINGS  OF  THE 


reference  to  the  Fathers  did  not  our  reviewer  sum- 
mon the  illustrious  doctor  of  the  Western  Church,  St. 
Jerome,  to  testify  in  behalf  of  "  Old  Catholicism."  I 
cannot  allow  that  great  man,  stern  of  feature  and 
blunt  of  speech,  whose  classic  latinity,  and  rigid  asceti- 
cism made  him  worthy  to  be  the  secretary  of  the 
learned  Pope  Damasus,  and  spiritual  guide  of  a 
Paula  and  Eustochium,  whose  biblical  knowledge 
qualified  him  to  undertake  and  faithfully  execute  the 
task  of  translating  the  Bible  from  the  original  text,  to  be 
put  on  record  in  the  19th  century  against  the  Papacy 
whose  sturdy  and  fearless  champion  he  was  in  the 
4th  and  5th  centuries.  Thus,  then,  St.  Jerome  is  made 
to  speak :  "  If  one  is  looking  for  authority,  the  world 
is  greater  than  one  city.  Wherever  a  bishop  may  be 
placed,  whether  at  Rome  or  Eugubium  ;  whether  at 
Constantinople  or  Rhegium  ;  whether  at  Alexandria 
or  at  Tunis,  he  has  the  same  authority,  the  same 
worth,  the  same  priesthood.  The  power  of  wealth, 
the  lowliness  of  poverty,  render  a  bishop  neither 
higher  nor  lower.  All  are  successors  of  the  Apostles." 
Now,  please  to  remark  that  the  only  words  in  this 
extract  from  the  letter  of  St.  Jerqme  having  any  sem- 
blance of  force  or  point  against  Catholic  doctrine  are 
those  "  he  has  the  same  authority"  and  these  words  St. 
Jerome  never  wrote ;  they  are  a  pure  interpolation. 
Now,  I  do  not  charge  that  our  Buffalo  "  Old  Catholic" 
committed  this  fraud,  or  falsified  St.  Jerome's  letter ;  he 
simply  did  here,  what  he  has  been  doing  all  along;  he 
has  taken  these  things  at  second-hand,  has  accepted 
a  falsified,  interpolated  version  as  the  genuine  text, 
without  ever  examining  the  original.  I  am  the  more 
inclined  to  put  this  construction   on    the  matter,  be- 


A  NCI  EN  T  FA  THER  S  VINDICA  TED.  g  5 

cause  I  think  if  he  had  read  this  letter,  to  which  he  ac- 
curately refers  in  a  foot-note  as  Epist.  cxlvi.,  he  would 
never  have  cited  it  as  authority,  for  in  this  letter  St. 
Jerome  does  \vhat  modern  Roman  theology  is  charged 
with  doing,  he  reduces  bishops  to  the  level  of  priests, 
and  says  that  bishops  and  priests  are  all  the  same.  We 
will  let  our  Episcopal  friend  settle  the  matter  with  St. 
Jerome  and  Presbyterians,  who  often  quote  this  very 
epistle  of  St.  Jerome.  For  ourselves,  we  know  what 
the  Church  teaches  on  thispoint,  and  we  know  that  St. 
Jerome  himself  elsewhere  acknowledges  the  superiority 
of  bishops,  and  we  know  that  this  letter  was  written  to 
correct  an  abuse,  by  which  deacons  pretended  an 
equality  with  priests,  and  grounded  their  claims  on 
certain  Roman  customs  and  privileges. 


£6  CANONS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS. 


XIV. 

CANONS  OF  NICE   AND  EPHESUS. 

JUST  here  I  may  call  attention  to  another  very  mis- 
leading statement,  professedly  inferred  from  the 
canons  of  the  Councils  of  Nicea  and  Ephesus.  In  a 
lecture  delivered  in  St.  Joseph's  Cathedral,  1874,  I 
referred  to  the  letter  which  Pope  Julius  I.  wrote  to  the 
Eastern  bishops,  A.  D.  342,  sustaining  the  appeal  made 
by  St.  Athanasius,  in  proof  that  at  this  early  period 
there  was  a  Pope  claiming  and  exercising  jurisdiction 
over  the  whole  Church,  East  and  West,  as  fully  and  em- 
phatically as  the  Popes  in  our  own  times;  to  which 
our  "  Old  Catholic"  reviewer  replies  :  "  Had  Julius 
addressed  the  bishops  of  Britain,  A.  D.  342,  even  in 
terms  of  patriarchal  authority,  they  would  have  re- 
minded him  that  his  limit  was  Lower  Italy."  A  few 
sentences  before  he  averred  that,  "  Western  Europe 
had  but  one  such  (Apostolic)  See,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  that  gave  Rome  a  canonical  primacy;"  and 
still  a  few  lines  above,  he  asserts  that  in  the  letter  to 
which  I  referred,  written  to  the  bishops  of  the  East,  in 
answer  to  an  appeal  to  the  Pope:  "Julius  was  claim- 
ing his  patriarchal  primacy  under  the  canons."  So 
that  although  Julius'  "patriarchal  authority  was 
limited  to  Lower  Italy,"  "Rome  had  a  canonical  prim- 
acy over  Western  Europe,"  and  "  a  patriarchal  author- 


CANONS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS.  gj 

ity,  under  the  canons"  over  Alexandria  and  the  East- 
ern Church.  But  it  is  not  to  these  contradictions  that 
I  wish  to  call  special  attention,  but  to  this  following 
statement :  "After  Ephesus,  they  (the  bishops  of 
Britain)  would  have  said,  that  England,  with  Cyprus: 
and  other  islands,  was  canonically  exempt  from  all 
such  jurisdictions  ;  which  was  and  is  the  fact."  But 
even  stranger  than  the  statement  itself  is  the  bold  at- 
tempt to  sustain  it  by  reference  in  a  foor-note  to :. 
"  Canon  vi.,  of  Nicea,  afterwards  Canon  vii.,  oi 
Ephesus." 

Now,  although  we  cannot  be  expected  here  to  dis- 
cuss these  canons,  we  affirm  positively  and  categorically,, 
that  these  canons  do  not  exempt  England,  Cyprus  or 
any  other  islands  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy- 
See,  and  that  there  was  no  question  of  such  exemp- 
tion in  either  the  Council  of  Nicea  or  Ephesus.  The 
question  before  the  Fathers  of  the  Nicene  Council  was 
in  regard  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  See  of  Alexandria, 
honored  and  privileged  from  earliest  days  because  it 
was  the  See  of  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist  and  disciple  of 
St.  Peter.  The  Meletian  schism  gave  rise  to  this  con- 
troversy, for  after  Meletius  was  condemned  by  St.  Peter 
of  Alexandria,  and  deposed  from  his  see,  he  rebelled 
against  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  of  Alex- 
andria, and  this  it  was  that  caused  the  synod  to  define  ' 
the  rights  and  jurisdiction  of  that  see  over  the  prov- 
inces of  Egypt,  Libya  and  Pentapolis,  which  it  does  in 
these  words:  "Let  the  ancient  custom  throughout 
Egypt,  Libya  and  Pentapolis  be  strictly  adhered  to,  so> 
that  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  shall  have  jurisdiction 
over  all  these  ;  since  this  is  also  the  custom  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome."     Now,  there  has  been  some  differ 


88  CA NONS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHE S US. 

ence  of  opinion  about  this  last  clause,  or  about  the 
true  meaning  and  correct  translation  of  the  original 
Greek  text,  some,  with  Bellarmine,  maintaining  the  true 
meaning  of  the  canon  to  be:  "Let  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria  govern  these  provinces,  because  such  was 
the  custom  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  that  is,  because 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  prior  to  any  definitions  by  councils, 
was  used  to  permit  the  Alexandrian  bishop  to  govern, 
or  have  jurisdiction,  over  these  provinces,"  which 
would  be  a  clear  acknowledgment  by  the  first  general 
council  of  the  primacy  of  Rome.  Others  say,  with 
Phillips,  that,  "  This  canon  does  not  demonstrate  the 
primacy  of  the  Pope,  as  the  Council  of  Nicea  did  not 
speak  of  this  primacy,  simply  because  it  had  no  need 
to  be  established  or  confirmed  by  it,"  and  hence  with 
Hefele,  they  translate  the  clause;  "There  is  a  similar 
custom  for  the  Roman  Bishop,"  that  is,  jurisdiction  over 
different  provinces,  a  patriarchate  is  recognized  in  re- 
gard to  Rome,  and  the  same  should  hold  for  Alexandria. 
Now,  we  will  not  discuss  this  disputed  point,  though 
from  the  text  the  first  is  plainly  the  true  meaning,  but 
it  is  in  any  case  undeniable  that  the  Council  of  Nicea 
never  dreamed  of  curtailing  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pope  or  exempting  England,  Cyprus,  or  other  islands 
from  his  jurisdiction.  So  much  then  for  Canon  vi.  of 
the  Council  of  Nicea.  What  about  Canon  vii.  of 
Ephesus?  In  the  first  place,  with'  most  authors  who 
have  written  the  history  of  this  council,  we  hold  that 
that  council  formulated  but  six  canons.  "If  in  some 
codex"  says  Hefele,  ("  History  of  the  Councils,"  torn.  II., 
p.  389,  French  Ed.  1869),  "eight  canons  are  found,  it  is 
because  the  resolution  passed  by  the  council  on  the 
the  motion  of  Charisiu.s,  is  regarded  as  Canon  vii.,  and 


CA.YOArS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS.  c, 

the  decree  concerning  the  bishops  of  Egypt  is  put 
down  as  Canon  viii."  This  decree,  then,  passed  in  the 
council  at  its  seventh  session,  is  referred  to  by  our 
learned  divine  as  Canon  vii.  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 
Those  wishing  to  obtain  full  information  regarding  the 
nature  and  meaning  of  the  decree  of  the  council,  I 
must  refer  to  Hefele's  History  above  cited,  or  to  the  au- 
thorities which  he  quotes,  (ibid.,  pp.  386,  387.)  Let  me, 
however,  briefly  as  possible,  state  the  question  pro- 
posed to,  and  acted  on,  by  the  council,  in  order  to  show 
that  it  has  no  connection  at  all  with  the  jurisdiction  or 
primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  although,  with  an  un- 
accountable assurance,  evidencing  either  bad  faith,  or 
inexcusable  reliance  on  second-hand,  untrustworthy  in- 
formation, we  are  told  that :  "After  Ephesus,  England, 
with  Cyprus  and  other  islands,  was  canonically  exempt 
from  such  jurisdiction." 

The*  Apostolic  See  of  Antioch,  which  the  Apostle 
St.  Peter  himself  founded,  like  that  of  Alexandria, 
claimed  special  privileges  and  an  extensive  jurisdic- 
tion, which  the  sixth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nicea 
seemed  to  recognize  and  confirm,  in  these  terms:  "In 
like  manner,  regarding  Antioch  and  the  other  provinces, 
let  the  churches  retain  their  special  privileges."  The 
bishop  of  Antioch  claimed  superior  metropolitan  or 
patriarchal  rights  over  Cyprus,  in  particular  the  right 
of  consecrating  its  bishops.  As  the  metropolitan  of 
Constantia  died  about  the  time  of  the  convocation  of 
the  council,  the  proconsul  of  Antioch,  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  Patriarch,  forbade  a  new  election  to  be  held  until 
this  disturbing  question  of  jurisdiction  should  be  finally 
adjudicated.  In  defiance  of  the  prohibition,  Rheginus 
was  elected  to  the  see  of  Constantia,  and  with  two  of  * 


90 


CA.YOA'S  OF  XJCE  AXD  EPHESUS. 


his  suffragans,  Zeno  and  Evagrius,  he  appealed  to  the 
council  against  the  pretensions  of  Antioch,  and  the 
question  was  warmly  and  lengthily  discussed  in  the 
seventh  session,  and  it  was  decreed,  that:  "The 
churches  of  Cyprus  should  continue  to  enjoy  their  in- 
dependence and  the  right  of  consecrating  their  own 
bishops  (and  of  electing,  them),  and  that  the  synod 
renew  in  general  all  the  liberties  of  the  ecclesiastical  prov- 
inces, and  forbid  encroachments  on  foreign  provinces." 
Thus  a  contest  between  local  churches  regarding  ec- 
clesiastical privileges,  and  disciplinary  canons  regulat- 
ing the  mutual  relations  of  these  churches,  has  been 
strangely  twisted  into  a  canonical  exemption  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  it  is  more  than 
insinuated  that  such,  forsooth,  was  the  purpose  and 
scope  of  these  canons.  Such  contests  and  rivalries 
and  disputes  regarding  jurisdiction  have  been  not  un- 
frequent  in  the  Church,  since  the  Apostolic  ages;  such 
existed  between  Canterbury  and  York  in  England,  be- 
tween Aries  and  Vienne  in  Gaul,  and  such,  in  very 
possible  contingencies,  may  yet  exist  between  the 
metropolitan  sees  of  Baltimore  and  New  York. 

Voluminous  are  the  canonical  enactments  adjudicat- 
ing such  rival  claims,  deciding  such  controversies, 
and  regulating  and  defending  the  limits  and  extent  of 
diocesan,  metropolitical,  primatial  and  patriarchal  jur- 
isdiction, yet  what  student  of  church  history  would 
assert  that  by  such  ecclesiastical  legislation  a  blow  was 
aimed  at  the  supremacy  of  the  Holy  See,  or  the  uni- 
versal jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  ?  It  is  even  still  more 
astonishing  that  any  one  denying  the  primacy  of  the 
Pope,  or  claiming  independence  of  his  supreme  pastoral 
authority,  should  make  any  reference  to  the  Council  of 


CANONS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS. 


9* 


Ephesus,  held  in  the  year  441,  composed  of  two  hun- 
dred bishops,  mostly  of  the  East.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem, 
opened  the  first  session,  on  the  the  226.  of  June,  and 
presided,  as  the  acts  of  the  council  state,  in  the  name 
of  the  Pope.  It  proceeded  to  condemn  Nestorius,  who 
refused  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  the  title  of  Theotokos  or 
Mother  of  God.  "  Forced,"  says  the  council,  "  by  the 
canons  and  by  the  letter  of  our  most  holy  Father,  and 
co-laborer,  Celestine,  Bishop  of  Rome;"  it  vindicated 
the  divine  maternity  of  Mary,  and  originated  the  prayer 
so  dear  to  Catholics,  adding  to  the  Angel's  greeting  the 
words:  "Holy  Mary,  mother  of  God,  pray  for  us  sinners, 
now,  and  at  the  hour  of  our  death." 

In  the  second  session,  held  on  the  10th  of  July  of  the 
same  year,  Cyril  is  again  expressly  designated  in  the  min- 
utes or  prods  verbal 'of  the  session,  as  the  representative 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  In  time  to  assist  at  this  session 
came  three  legates  of  the  Pope,  Arcadius  and  Projec- 
tus,  bishops,  and  Philip,  a  priest,  bringing  a  dogmatical 
letter  from  Celestine,  which  was  read  before  the  synod, 
first  in  the  original  Latin,  and  then  in  a  Greek  version, 
which  was  received  with  loud  applause.  The  letter  of 
the  Pope  declares  that :  "  He  sent  three  legates  to  assist 
at  the  deliberations  of  the  synod,  and  to  attend  to  the 
execution  of  what  the  Pope  had  previously  concluded; 
and  he  doubted  not,  but  that  the  assembled  bishops 
would  be  in  accord  with  these  his  decisions."  The  third 
session  was  held  the  following  day,  the  nth  of  July. 
The  legates  of  the  Pope  declared  that  they  had  read, 
in  the  interval,  the  acts  of  the  first  session,  (at  which 
they  had  not  assisted)  and  had  found  the  sentence 
against  Nestorius  entirely  canonical  and  according  to 
the  discipline  of  the  Church,  but  that,  according  to  the 


92 


CANONS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS. 


orders  of  the  Pope,  they  should  require  the  acts  of  the 
first  session  to  be    read  in  their  presence,  which   was 
immediately  done.  (Hefele,  torn,  ii.,  p.  379.)  'this,  surely, 
does  not  look  much  like  snubbing  the  Pope,  or  repudi- 
ating his  jurisdiction.     Does  Ephesus  limit  the  Pope's 
jurisdiction  to    Lower  Italy  ?     What   gives  Celestine, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  the  right  to  preside  by  his  represen- 
tatives at  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus  and  to  im- 
pose his  authority  and  his  doctrinal  decisions  on  the 
assembled  bishops?  Can  it  be  his  dignity  as  Patriarch 
of  the  West  ?     How  came  Rome  to  have  a  "  canonical 
primacy?"  Where  are  the  canons  to  be  found  conferring, 
formulating,  or  promulgating  this  primacy  ?     Is  it  not 
plain  and  undeniable  that  this  primacy  had  its  origin 
in  a  higher  source,  existed,  and  was  acknowedged  prior 
to  councils  and  canons?  and  that  these,  as  Boniface  I. 
writes  to  the  bishops  of  Thessaly,  "  did  not  dare  pass 
laws  regarding  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  knowing  that  no 
act  of  man  could  confer  additional  power  on  one,  who 
had  received  all  power  from  the  words  of  pur  Lord 
Himself."     With  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus 
before  us,  its  acts  and  its  canons,  how  difficult  it  is  to 
be  patient  on  reading  repeated  assertions  of  this  kind  : 
"By  the  ancient  canons  (A.D.  431)  it  was  impossible 
for  him  (the  Pope)  to  assert  even  a  patriarchal  author- 
ity,   in     England,   which    enjoyed    the    insular    privi- 
lege of  entire    self-dependence,"  giving  as  authority 
"Third    General    Council,    Ephesus,"  when    there    is 
nothing  of  the  kind   to  be   found  in  the  Council  of 
Ephesus,  nothing  more  than  what  we  have  already 
mentioned,  that  the  churches  of  the  island  of  Cyprus 
are  not  subject  to  the  see  of  Antioch,but  should  con- 
tinue to  enjoy  their  independence  in  the  election  and 
consecration  of  their  bishops. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  g^ 


XV. 

THE    CATHOLIC    DOCTRINE    REGARDING    ECCLESIASTI- 
CAL JURISDICTION. 

OUR  opponents  seem  to  have  no  idea  of  the  power 
of  jurisdiction  as  distinct  from  the  power  of  order 
conferred  in  priestly  and  episcopal  ordination,  and  hence 
much  of  their  confusion,  bewilderment,  and  erroneous 
inferences.  We  have  already  said  that  the  power  of 
order  may  exist  without  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  as 
in  the  case  of  a  priest  regularly  ordained  by  any  lasvfully 
consecrated  bishop,  but  who  has  not  yet  received  facul- 
ties or  a  mission  from  his  own  ordinary  ;  or  in  the  case  of 
a  bishop  consecrated  merely  to  perform  certain  special 
acts,  such  as  confirming,  ordaining,  etc.,  and  these  on 
this  account  are  called  in  German,  weihbiscliofs,  and 
they  perform  acts  which  none  but  bishops,  none  but 
those  having  the  episcopal  character  and  order  can 
do.  So,  too,  jurisdiction  may  be  exercised  without 
orders,  as  when  a  simple  cleric  is  appointed  to  a  bene- 
fice, or  when  a  priest  has  received  from  the  Pope  his 
appointment  to  a  see,  but  has  not  yet  been  consecrated. 
This  premised,  we  say  we  hold,  with  St.  Jerome,  that  a 
bishop  in  Buffalo  is  the  equal  of  a  bishop  in  Rome  as 
far  as  his  episcopal  order,  and  the  power  attached  to 
and  inherent  in  his  order,  are  concerned,  for  the  episco- 
pate is  one,  the  episcopal  order  is  one  and  the  same  in 


94 


CA  7' HO LIC  DOCTRINE  REGARDING 


all  bishops,  wherever  they  may  be  placed,  whether  at 
Rome  or  Eugubium ;  at  Buffalo,  or  New  York,  though 
there  are  various  grades  or  degrees  of  jurisdiction,  as 
is  clearly  explained  in  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  Chap.  VII.,  Question  xxv.,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made.  Take  an  illustration.  Our 
present  revered  metropolitan,  lately,  to  the  joy  of  Catho- 
lic and  non-Catholic  America,  made  by  our  late  loved 
and  saintly  Holy  Father,  first  American  cardinal,  be- 
fore his  promotion  to  the  archbishopric  of  New  York, 
was  the  bishop  of  Albany,  and  then  he  and  the  bishop 
of  Buffalo  were  on  a  perfect  equality,  each  governing 
his  respective  diocese,  and  discharging  the  duties  of 
his  episcopal  office  with  the  same  powers  both  of  order 
and  jurisdiction.  Elevated  to  the  archiepiscopal  dig- 
nity, and  installed  in  the  archiepiscopal  see,  and  in- 
vested by  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  with  the  pallium, 
things  are  somewhat  changed.  His  episcopal  order 
has  undergone  no  change,  no  new  character  has  been 
impressed  on  him,  ho  new  consecration  conferred,  but 
besides  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  which  he  has  now  over 
the  diocese  of  New  York,  as  he  had  before  over  the 
diocese  of  Albany,  and  as  the  bishop  of  Buffalo  has 
over  his  own  diocese,  he  now  has  an  enlarged  or  ex- 
tended jurisdiction  according  to  the  canons  and  laws 
of  the  Church  over  a  whole  Province,  embracing  seven 
dioceses.  Another  illustration.  Our  present  illustrious 
Pontiff,  Leo  XIII.,  was  consecrated  bishop  in  Rome 
on  the  19th  of  February,  1843,  with  the  title  of  arch- 
bishop of  Damietta  in  partibus. 

He  then  received  the  full  powers  of  the  episcopal 
order,  with  only  a  nominal  jurisdiction.  He  was  sent 
as  nuncio   to   Brussels,  and   for  three   years   in   the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  05 

capital  of  Belgium,  as  bishop,  was  on  a  footing  of 
equality  with  the  bishops  of  that  kingdom,  though, 
except  by  special  delegation,  he  could  exercise  in  any 
of  their  dioceses  no  act  of  an  Ordinary,  no  episcopal 
jurisdiction.  His  health  somewhat  impaired,  he 
travelled,  we  are  told,  through  Belgium  and  parts  of 
Germany,  visited  England,  and  on  his  way  back  to 
Italy,  passed  through  Paris,  Lyons,  Marseilles  as  a 
simple  bishop,  as  the  equal  of  the  bishops  whom  he 
met,  everywhere  esteemed  and  admired  for  his  learning, 
ability  and  virtue.  We  find  him  then  a  simple  bishop 
again  in  Rome,  and  as  such  the  bishop  of  Buffalo,  had 
there  been  one  at  the  time,  would  have  been  the  equal 
of  a  bishop  in  Rome,  nay,  in  some  respect  superior  to 
him,  for  he  would  have  jurisdiction  as  Ordinary  over  a 
diocese,  and  Bishop  Pecci  in  Rome  had  not.  But  in  1846 
Monsigneur  Pecci  was  appointed  to  the  see  of  Perugia  ; 
on  the  26th  of  the  same  year  the  new  bishop  took  sol- 
emn possession  of  his  see,  and  without  any  new  consecra- 
tion or  any  addition  to  the  power  of  the  episcopal  order, 
by  the  appointment  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  he  was  in- 
vested with  the  additional  power  of  jurisdiction  as  ordi- 
nary of  the  see  of  Perugia  and  metropolitan  of  the 
Province  of  Umbria.  On  the  20th  of  February,  1878, 
Monsigneur  Pecci,  who  on  December  19th,  1853,  had 
been  made  cardinal,  and  on  the  21st  of  September, 
1877,  camerlengo,  was  elected,  and  on  the  3d  of 
March  solemnly  crowned  Pope,  under  the  name  and 
title  of  Leo  XIII.  He  is  now,  not  a  bishop  in  Rome, 
but  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  successor  of  St.  Peter  and 
vicar  of  Christ.  Though  there  has  been  no  addition 
to,  or  extension  of  his  power  as  a  bishop,  or  more 
properly  of  his  episcopal  order,  yet,  on  his  legitimate 


g6  CA  THOL IC  DOC TR1XE  RE GA RDING 

and  canonical  elevation  to  the  See  of  Rome,  the 
chair  of  Peter,  he  has  acquired  by  divine  right,  by 
the  institution  of  Christ  and  the  Divine  constitution 
of  the  Christian  Church,  supreme  and  universal  juris- 
diction over  the  Church,  is  made  Supreme  Pastor 
of  the  whole  flock,  and  thus,  as  among  the  Apostles, 
who  were  all  equal,  "  one  was  selected,"  as  St.  Jerome 
says,  "  that  by  the  appointment  of  a  Head,  the  occasion 
of  schism  may  be  taken  away,"  so  among  bishops, 
though  there  is  a  solidarity,  "  the  episcopate  is  one 
and  indivisible,"  according  to  St.  Cyprian,  and  "each 
bishop  can  hold  a  part  without  division  of  the 
whole,"  yet  "  Christ  gave  the  keys  to  Peter  as  a  token 
of  unity,"  and  for  the  preservation  of  that  unity,  He 
made  the  Roman  Church,  the  chair  of  Peter,  the 
radix  and  matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church,  so  that, 
though  she  "pours  abroad  her  bountiful  streams,  yet 
there  is  one  source,  one  Head,  one  Mother,  abundant 
in  the  results  of  her  fruitfulness."  (St.  Cyprian,  De 
Unitate  Ecclesiae.) 

Is  not  this  just  what  we  should  expect  in  a  Church 
founded  by  the  Word  and  Wisdom  of  God,  into  which 
all  were  to  be  gathered  that  were  to  be  saved  and 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  that  thus,  as  He 
Himself  declared,  there  might  be  "  one  sheep-fold 
under  one  shepherd."  Thus  then,  with  St.  Jerome  we 
agree  that  a  bishop  in  Buffalo  is,  as  to  his  episcopal 
order  and  the  power  of  order,  not  only  the  equal  of  a 
bishop  at  Rome,  but  the  equal  of  a  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  in  this  respect  possesses  no  higher 
or  greater  power,  is  no  more  a  bishop  in  the  sense  ex- 
plained than  was  simple  Monsigneur  Pecci  after  his 
consecration  on  the  Viminal  hill,  in  Rome,  in  the  year 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  gy 

1843,  though  as  to  jurisdiction  we  now  own  him  as 
Bishop  of  bishops,  holding  a  primacy  of  honor  and 
jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church,  and  we  hesitate  not 
to  repeat  in  regard  to  Leo  XIII.,  what,  when  spoken 
in  1874  of  Pius  IX.,  of  saintly  memory,  so  much  riled 
certain  parties  here :  "  As  one  man,  we  all,  bishops, 
priests  and  people,  lay  at  the  feet  of  his  Holiness  all 
the  devotion,  love,  reverence  and  submission  due 
to  the  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  and  vicar  of 
Christ."  This  is  probably  more  than  enough  to  ex- 
plain the  twofold  power  of  order  and  jurisdiction,  and 
our  relations  as  bishops  governing  our  respective  dio- 
ceses in  communion  with,  and  subordination  to,  the 
Holy  See.  Are  Catholic  bishops  then  simply  vicars 
of  the  Pope,  holding  their  office  and  their  powers '#/ 
his  nod?  The  episcopacy  is  of  divine  institution;  it 
belongs  to  the  organic  constitution  of  the  Church  as 
founded  by  Christ.  The  titular  bishop  is  the  Ordinary 
of  his  diocese,  governing  it  not  by  vicarious  or  delegated 
powers,  but  "  placed  there  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  rule 
the  Church  of  God."  (Acts  xx.  28).  His  power  both  of 
order  and  jurisdiction  over  his  flock,  is  from  God,  there- 
fore, he  is  styled  Ordinary,  exercises  ordinary  jurisdic- 
tion, which  he  delegates  to  others.  Here  we  see  the 
necessity  of  the  distinction,  which  we  have  already 
brought  out  at  some  length,  between  the  power  of 
order  and  jurisdiction,  and  between  the  divine  institu- 
tion of  the  episcopate  and  the  appointment  of  individ- 
ual bishops.  Bishops  are  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
but  each  individual  bishop  is  not  the  successor  of  some 
one  Apostle,  as  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter.  The  mission  of  the  Apostles  was  "  to  teach  all 
nations,"  "  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature."    No 


98  CA  TH0L1C  DOCTRINE  REGARDING 

bounds  were  assigned  to  them  for  the  exercise  of  their 
jurisdiction;  the  jurisdiction  of  a  bishop  is  limited  by 
the  diocese  to  which  he  is  appointed. 

The  power  of  order  in  all  bishops  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  equal ;  so  is  it  essential,  inamissible,  indestructi- 
ble. In  spite  of  Popes  and  councils,  in  spite  of  canon- 
ical prohibitions,  excommunication,  and  even  deposi- 
tion, a  true  bishop  can  validly  perform  all  the  acts 
proper  to  his  episcopal  order,  because,  not  from  the 
Church,  not  from  the  Pope,  not  from  canons  or  coun- 
cils, but  directly  and  immediately  from  God,  is  his 
power  of  order,  and  it  is  conferred  by  consecration. 
Not  so  the  power  of  jurisdiction  ;  it  is  conferred  by 
his  appointment,  and  before  consecration  is  possessed 
in  all  its  fulness  and  extent.  It  is  not  equal  in  all  bishops, 
for  then  there  could  not  be  metropolitans,  primates, 
patriarchs,  any  more  than  Popes,  and  yet  these  have  ex- 
isted in  the  Christian  Church  from  the  earliest  ages,  and 
are  interwoven  into  the  texture  of  her  constituent 
laws.  Nothing  is  more  clear  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  of  the  Church  of  England  in  particular, 
than  that  the  jurisdiction  of  bishops  has  been  modi 
fied,  changed,  enlarged  or  curtailed  by  canonical  en- 
actments and  the  actions  of  Popes.  The  history  of  the 
Pontificate  of  Gregory  the  Great,  and  the  sees  of 
Canterbury  and  York,  affords  ample  proof  of  this, 
whilst  it  is  superfluous  to  say  that  the  Holy  See  has 
erected  new  sees,  divided  and  subdivided  dioceses  and 
provinces,  and  even,  though  rarely,  abolished  sees.  Wit- 
ness the  Church  of  France  after  the  French  revolution, 
the  establishment  of  the  American  Church,  the  re-es- 
tablishment of  the  English  and  Scotch  hierarchy.  The 
power  of  jurisdiction,  then,  in  the  episcopacy  is  divine 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  99 

and  from  God,  but  indirectly,  and  through  the  Pope, 
Christ  our  Lord  so  organizing  and  constituting  His 
Church,  giving  to  Peter  the  full  power  of  the  keys  and 
the  feeding  and  government  of  the  whole  flock,  lambs 
and  sheep.  (Matt,  xvi.,  19.  Johnxxi.,  15,  16,  17.)  "  The 
episcopal  power  of  jurisdiction  is  therefore  not  de- 
rived immediately  from  Christ,  in  so  far  as  it  exists  in 
individuals;  it  has  been  established  by  Christ,  but  is 
not  conferred  immediately  by  Him  upon  individual 
bishops ;  it  is  imparted  to  them  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  or  bishops  whom  he  has  authorized.  Thus  the 
unity  of  the  episcopate,  so  much  insisted  on  by  the 
Fathers,  is  fully  upheld  ;  the  Holy  See  is  head,  root, 
spring,  origin  of  the  spiritual  authority."  (Hergenrother, 
"  Church  and  State,"  vol.  1.,  p.  177.) 

This  is  sufficient  explanation  of  the  formula  used  in 
the  appointment  of  bishops,  "  In  virtue  of  the  power 
of  God,  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  Rul- 
ing Pope  ;"  and  also  of  that  used  by  bishops  themselves, 
"  By  the  grace  of  God  and  of  the  Holy  See,"  for  even 
those  who  maintain  with  Thomassin  that  bishops  obtain 
their  jurisdiction  immediately  from  Christ,  acknowl- 
edge that :  "  They  have  not  received  immediately 
from  him  their  particular  territory  or  peculiar  diocese, 
since  this  partition  has  been  made  in  the  course  of 
ages  by  the  Church,  nor  could  it  be  made  or  perpetu- 
ated unless  with  the  consent  of  the  Head,  in  whom  is 
the  pivot  and  centre  of  the  ecclesiastical  unity." 
(Thomassin,  cited  by  Hergenrother,  as  above.)  More 
clearly  and  correctly  does  the  learned  Gerdile,  quoted 
in  the  same  place  by  the  same  author,  express  the 
Catholic  doctrine  on  this  point,  thus  :  "For  jurisdic- 
tion, the  assignment  of  a  people  as  subjects  is  requisite, 


IOo  CA  THOLIC  DOCTRINE  REGARDING 

and  this  is  done  by  human,  not  divine  right.  Though 
the  form  and  manner  of  this  assignment  may  vary  in 
different  places  and  times  according  to  the  diversity 
of  discipline,  yet  none  could  be  lawful  unless  approved 
by  the  Holy  See,  from  whose  consent  it  receives  force 
and  strength,  according  to  the  plenitude  of  power  shed 
over  the  universal  Church."  That  is,  by  the  positive 
act  of  the  Holy  See  assigning  a  diocese,  and  determin- 
ing its  limits,  the  subjects  of  a  bishop  are  determined 
and  actual  jurisdiction  over  the  same  is  conferred, 
which  jurisdiction  is  from  God,  though  not  immedi- 
ately, but  through  the  vicar  of  Christ,  it  is  ordinary, 
not  delegated  or  vicarious,  and  hence  he  can  delegate 
the  same  to  others,  which  he  could  not  do,  were  it  a 
delegated  power.  And  though  the  manner  of  making 
appointments  to  episcopal  sees  has  varied  at  different 
times,  no  appointment  could  ever  have  been  lawful, 
if  the  Holy  See  rejected  it,  or  if  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff  did  not  expressly  or  tacitly  consent  to  it. 

This  a  Bishop  of  Rome  who  was  faithful  and  exact 
in  the  observance  of  the  canons,  St.  Gregory  the 
Great,  explicitly  declares ;  writing  to  the  empress 
of  Constantinople,  he  says  in  regard  to  the  conse- 
cration of  Maximus,  elevated  to  the  episcopate  against 
his  wish  :  "A  thing  was  done  which  never  happened 
under  previous  princes."  (L.  5,  Epist.  xxi.)  And  to 
Maximus  himself,  he  writes :  "  An  unheard  of  wicked- 
ness is  added,  that  after  our  interdict,  excommunicating 
yourself  and  those  ordaining  you,  you  are  said,"  etc. 
(L.  4,  Epist.  xx.)  Rightly  then  do  we  "  object  to 
any  ordination  not  proceeding  under  warrant  from 
Rome."  Nor  does  this  "overthrow  the  orders  of  St. 
Chrysostom.    St.    Augustine    and    St.    Ambrose,"    as 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  Ior 

any  student  of  history  knows  that  these  illustrious 
saints  and  doctors  of  the  Church  acknowledged  the 
supremacy  of  the  See  of  Rome  and  were  in  turn  ac- 
knowleged  by  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  How  false,  then,, 
and  misleading  the  assertion,  that  because  the  Papacy 
is  the  source  and  centre  of  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
in  the  Catholic  sense  now  explained,  Catholic  bishops 
are  "  not  true  bishops,  have  no  power  at  all."  I 
almost  deem  it  beneath  me,  especially  after  all  we  have 
already  said,  to  notice  the  insulting  remark  :  "They  are 
not  permitted  to  bear  any  corporate  witness  whatever  ; 
and  when  summoned  to  meet  the  Pope  in  council, 
it  is  only  to  tremble  around  his  throne,  accept  his 
oracles,  and  renounce  their  own  convictions  at  his  com- 
mand, or  submit  to  be  stripped  of  their  dignities,  such 
as  they  are."  Catholic  bishops  are,  by  divine  right, 
witnesses  and  judges  of  the  faith,  and  they  can  neither 
abdicate  their  rights,  nor  be  despoiled  of  them  by  any 
earthly  power. 

It  is  precisely  when  assembled  in  council  under  the 
presidency  of  the  Pope,  that  they  represent,  and  are 
successors  of  the  College  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  their 
corporate  capacity  speak  with  the  full,  supreme  and  in- 
fallible authority,  vested  by  Christ  our  Lord  in  His 
holy  Church.  Are  judges  in  our  courts  not  true  judges, 
void  of  all  power  and  authority,  because  there  are 
judges  of  higher  courts  to  whom  appeal  may  be  taken, 
who  have  a  wider  jurisdiction,  and  who  are  empowered 
to  review,  confirm  or  reverse  their  decisions?  Have 
bishops  no  power,  because  by  our  Lord's  divine  ordi- 
nances their  power  in  the  Church  is  subordinated  to 
that  of  him  whom  He  appointed  as  Supreme  Judge  in 
faith  and  morals,  and  Supreme  Ruler  and  Pastor  of  his 


102  CA  THOLIC  DOC  TRINE  RE  GA  RDING 

whole  flock  ?  Does  not  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  clearly 
and  emphatically  state  that  its  decrees  do  not  curtail, 
weaken,  or  in  any  way  belittle  episcopal  authority; 
that  the  universal  and  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  Sov- 
ereign Pontiff  does  not  conflict  with  that  of  the  bishop 
in  his  own  diocese?  "  But  so  far  is  this  power  of  the 
Supreme  Pontiff  from  being  any  prejudice  to  the  ordi- 
nary and  immediate  power  of  episcopal  jurisdiction,  by 
which  bishops  who  have  been  sent  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  succeed  and  hold  the  place  of  the  Apostles,  (Coun. 
of  Trent,  Sess.  xxiii.,  chap,  iv.)  feed  and  govern,  each 
his  own  flock,  as  true  pastors,  that  this  their  episco- 
pal authority  is  really  asserted,  strengthened  and  vin- 
dicated by  the  Supreme  and  Universal  Pastor."  (Dog- 
matic Constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  chap,  iii.) 

Thus,  while  thanking  our  friends  for  the  great  inter- 
est they  take  in  the  maintenance  of  our  rights  as 
bishops,  as  against  the  so-called  overshadowing  and 
all-absorbing  power  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  we  see  how 
jealously  the  Church  guards  the  original  divine  con- 
stitution given  to  her  by  her  divine  Founder.  The 
Church  is  to-day  as  the  Redeemer  of  the  world  consti- 
tuted and  organized  her,  holding  all  her  powers  from 
Him,  and  wonderfully,  divinely  equipped  to  do  His 
work,  and  to  do  His  work  unfailingly  to  the  end  of  ages. 
To  her  keeping  the  fruits  of  redemption,  the  merits 
of  the  passion  and  death  of  a  God-man,  were  to  be 
committed,  through  her  to  be  dispensed  to  the  souls  of 
men.  She  was  to  guard  the  deposit  of  faith,  and  teach 
it  to  all  nations,  and  He  Himself  was  to  be  with  her  all 
days,  to  the  end  of  time,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  was  to 
abide  with  her  forever  to  teach  her  all  truth.  Her 
ministers  to-day  can  say  with  St,  Paul,  "  Let  a  man  so 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  joj 

look  upon  us  as  ministers  of  Christ  and  stewards  of 
the  mysteries  of  God,"  (I  Cor.,  iv.  i.)and  because  sent 
by  Him,  delegated  and  empowered  by  Him,  He  says: 
11  He  that  hears  you  hears  me."  (Luke  x.  16.)  But 
they  have  no  arbitrary  powers,  they  can  exercise  no 
usurped  authority,  and  nothing  is  plainer  in  Holy  Writ, 
than  that  our  Lord  chose  his  own  ministers :  "  I  have 
chosen  you,  not  you  me  ;"  (John  xv.  16.)  and  appointed 
them  to  do  His  own  work,  and  "  I  have  appointed  you 
that  you  should  go  and  bring  forth  fruit  and  that  yoar 
fruit  should  remain."     (ibid.) 

The  Church  is  God's  own  work.  He  founded  it,  and 
"  other  foundation  no  man  can  lay  but  that  which  is 
laid."  (I  Cor.,  iii.  2.)  "  Built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone."  (Eph.,  ii.  20.)  His  own  mystical 
body,  moulded  into  perfect  shape  and  form  by  His  owa 
hands,  living  a  divine  life  breathed  into  it  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  it  is  destined  to  gather  into  one  fold,  un- 
der one  shepherd,  all  mankind,  for,  as  St.  Cyprian 
teaches,  there  is  "one  God,  one  Christ,  one  Church," 
and  St.  Paul,  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,"  and 
does  this  not  imply  one  Head,  one  Supreme  Author- 
ity, one  Universal  Pastor?  Can  the  smallest  meeting 
be  organized  without  a  chairman  ?  Can  any  society  ex- 
ist without  a  presiding  officer?  Can  any  city  success- 
fully conduct  its  municipal  affairs  without  a  mayor? 
Would  any  rational  man  dream  of  a  state  without  a 
governor,  or  a  nation  without  a  ruler?  How  long 
would  our  union  hold  together  without  a  president; 
and  does  not  the  setting  up  of  rival  presidents  involve 
the  disintegration  of  the  nation  ?  Could  any  of  our 
parishes  or  congregations  ever  remain  one,  united  and 


104 


CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  REGARDING 


prosperous  without  a  spiritual  guide  and  pastor,  hav- 
ing authority  to  teach  and  to  govern  ?  How  preserve  in 
agreement  of  discipline  and  faith  the  priests  and  people 
of  a  diocese  without  a  bishop  invested  with  superior 
jurisdiction,  recognized  higher  pastoral  authority,  and 
how  maintain  "  one  faith,"  "  one  Church,"  "  one  fold," 
embracing  all  the  world,  all  the  bishops,  all  the  priests, 
and  all  the  faithful  people  of  Christendom,  without  one 
Supreme  Head,  one  sovereign  authority,  one  divinely 
constituted,  Universal  and  Infallible  Pastor?  Did  not 
our  Lord  provide  for  this  in  selecting  one  among  all  His 
Apostles,  giving  him  the  name  of  Peter,  establishing 
him  as  the  rock  on  which  His  Church  was  to  be  built, 
pledging  His  infallible  word  that  the  gates  of  hell  should 
never  prevail  against  it,  praying  with  a  prayer  of  divine 
efficacy  that  his  fa'ith  fail  not,  for  he  was  to  confirm 
his  brethren,  and  finally,  actually  giving  him  the  full 
charge  of  feeding  and  governing  his  whole  flock,  lambs 
and  sheep,  pastors  and  people  ?  The  episcopate  and  the 
priesthood  are  necessary  constituent  elements  in  the 
Church,  and  can  never  be  absorbed  or  abolished,  but 
they  are,  by  the  very  nature  and  constitution  of  the 
Church,  subordinated  to  the  Supreme  Pastor,  the  Sov- 
ereign Pontiff. 

Nor  does  it  follow,  because  a  sovereign  ruler,  or  ex- 
ecutive of  a  nation,  may  appoint,  and,  for  cause,  re- 
move inferior  officers,  or  veto  the  acts  of  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  government,  that  therefore  he  may  abol- 
ish such  offices,  branches,  or  departments  of  govern- 
ment, or  usurp  rights,  privileges,  and  powers,  equally 
valid  with  his  own,  and  derived  from  the  same  source  ; 
even  though  by  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  state,  subordinate  to  his.     In  like  manner 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION.  105 

in  the  Church,  by  her  divine  constitution,  a  master-piece, 
by  the  way,  of  divine  wisdom,  there  is,  and  it  is  of  faith 
that  there  is,  besides  the  Papacy,  with  its  primacy  of 
honor  and  jurisdiction  over  the  Universal  Church,  a 
sacred  hierarchy  consisting  of  bishops,  priests  and  minis- 
ters ;  with  rights,  privileges  and  powers,  as  valid  as  those 
of  the  Papacy,  reposing  on  the  same  foundation,  se- 
cured by  the  same  charter,  a  hierarchy  therefore,  that 
never  can  be  abolished  by  Papal  power,  absorbed  or  con- 
founded in  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See,  but  without 
jangle  or  clashing  of  any  kind,  bishops,  priests  and 
ministers  are  ordained  of  Christ  to  co-exist  and  effect- 
ually co-operate  even  to  the  end  of  ages,  with  the 
supreme  power  with  which  He  has  been  pleased  to 
invest  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles  and  first  Bishop  of  Rome.  I  must  now  finish 
what  I  have  perhaps  drawn  out  with  perhaps  un- 
necessary prolixity,  but  I  was  anxious  to  elucidate  this 
point  of  Catholic  faith,  which  has  been  so  much  obscured 
and  misrepresented,  in  the  hope  that  those  large 
numbers  of  our  esteemed  and  most  worthy  fellow-Chris- 
tians who  admire  the  beauty,  and  strength,  and  indes- 
tructibility of  what  they  call  the  Catholic  system  or 
Papal  polity,  may  at  length  see  that  all  this  beauty,  un- 
conquerable strength,  and  indestructible  vitality  are  de- 
rived from  her  Divine  Founder.  Of  them,  or  at  least  of 
many  of  them,  whom  we  sincerely  believe  to  be  uncon- 
sciously and  innocently,  outside  the  true  Church,  our 
loving  Saviour  says :  "  Other  sheep  I  have,  that  are  not 
of  this  fold  ;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear 
my  voice  and  there  shall  be  one  sheep-fold  and  one 
Shepherd."     (John  x.  16).     Fiat!  Fiat! 

THE   END. 


s 


M 


'm^&M* 


H-< 


■M  a/JWN 


MH 


■^ 


■ 


Vj  aVVv.taa' 


